Monday, November 5, 2012

Clinical Research Oriented Workshop (CROW) Meeting: Nov 1, 2012

Present: Kairn Kelley, Ben Littenberg, Charlie MacLean, Prema Menon, Connie van Eeghen

1.                  Start Up: Post Sandy-Hurricane – at least it’s not raining.

2.                  Presentation: Kairn: final draft of article on IRR titled: “Inter-rater reliability for scoring dichotic words test responses of 6-10 year-old children.”  The group reviewed the draft and made the following comments/suggestions:
a.       Target journal: American Speech-Language-Hearing Association journal (American Journal of Audiology) or Journal of the American Academy of Audiology. Content of journal is consistent with this draft. Add more explanation re: why a logistic regression was used (Bonferroni correction details irrelevant after change to analysis discussed later; Bonferroni adjusts for likelihood of statistical significance occurring by chance from multiple comparisons)
b.      State sooner that the test’s word list is novel, although the test concept is well-established.  Consider saying more about why this new word list was developed.
c.       Abstract states IRR improves over time, but this doesn’t explain the duration involved.  These were naïve raters for this word list; worth saying up front.
d.      A detailed discussion on the two alternative figures ensured, which was so engaging that the recorder forgot to take notes.  Decision: any words outside the 95% confidence interval should be considered for exclusion from the word list.
e.       Consider doing a clustered analysis, as there is randomness among words and randomness among children. 
f.       Logistical regression results: keep the details that show change by session, which was the significant variable in explaining change in rater performance.  Include age, sex, and hearing in the data table.  Experiment with a figure, showing the change in session over time (possibly a series of box plots).
g.      Methods decision to use percent agreement might be the place to explain why Kappa was not used.  Or a sentence, in discussion, as a strength, rather than in the Limitations section.
h.      Recheck the language for the section marked: Test Item Difficulty/Pass Proportion
i.        Ben has the best tongue twisters in the group, but Charlie came up with some good ones too.
j.        Next: redraft – and think about how to do this for ADHD children.

3.                  Next Workshop Meeting(s): Thursday, 2:00 p.m. – 3:30 p.m., at Given Courtyard Level 4. 
a.       Nov 8: Rodger & Connie: presentation on Strategies on Implementing BHI
b.      Nov 15: Abby: review of draft manuscript for NAS predictors article (no Ben)
c.       Nov 22: THANKSGIVING… take the day off J
d.      Nov 29: Prema: draft grant application
e.       Dec 6:
f.       Future agenda to consider:
                                                  i.      Kairn – review of draft article on IRR  
                                                ii.      Ben: budgeting exercise for grant applications; NHANES – lower female mortality for women taking birth control medications
                                              iii.      Rodger: Mixed methods article; article on Behavior’s Influence on Medical Conditions (unpublished); drug company funding.  Also: discuss design for PCBH clinical and cost research.  Also: Prezi demo. 
                                              iv.      Amanda: presentation and interpretation of data in articles
                                                v.      Christina Cruz, 3rd year FM resident with questionnaire for mild serotonin withdrawal syndrome on 12/6 or 12/13

Recorder: Connie van Eeghen and Kairn Kelley

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.