Present: Kairn
Kelley, Amanda Kennedy, Rodger Kessler, Ben Littenberg, Charlie MacLean, Connie
van Eeghen
1.
Start Up: How much money is it possible to spend on
a watch? Try $4.5m, per Rodger. There is no process that we can think of that
quite explains this resource allocation.
2.
Presentation: Kairn:
F31 grant application for career development of pre-doctoral fellows: stipend,
research, and tuition for 2-5 years.
a. The
FINER question is “Do symptoms of ADHD affect the reliability of dichotic word
tests?”
b. Aims:
recruitment, test administration, data collection (including scoring of ADHD
and treatment of children for ADHD), results, relationship between ADHD and
test results. Questions of interest:
i.
Does ADHD impair the reliability of DWT?
ii.
What is the distribution of DWT scores in an unselected
pop?
iii.
What is the test-retest reliability of DWT in
unselected pop?
iv.
Do scores differ in ADHD vs. non-ADHD?
v.
Does reliability differ in ADHD vs. non-ADHD.
c. FINER:
i.
Feasibility: pending
ii.
Interesting: yes
iii.
Novel: yes; ensure that this study is not duplicative
of another researcher known to be at work in this area of the field.
iv.
Ethical: yes, but schools may not want to hear about
previously undiagnosed problems, and this does place a burden on kids that may
be struggling. Also, there’s no ability
to follow up medically on newly found diagnoses.
v.
Relevance: feedback from program officer indicated that
this was not clear. Identify whether
there is clinical interest and develop a strong statement about:
1. Tests
need to be evaluated
2. ADHD
is an important clinical subgroup
3. Concerns
of reliability could affect patient/student outcomes
4. Consider
estimating the financial impact of administering this test across the country
d. Design:
cross-sectional sample with a follow up test
i.
Target population: general U.S. school age population,
English as first language, ages 6-11, with consistent language patterns with
the test and the raters.
1. Age
as a covariate (older kids score better)
2. Concern:
Is the scope broad enough to attract reviewers/funding? Consider seeking out collaborators in other
states/territories (e.g. Puerto Rico)
ii.
Sample:
1. VT
school children (non-Vermont samples will help the F31 greatly), captured in an
unselected way (no differentiation by other diagnoses affecting children)
2. Pediatric
patients, pre- and post-wellness visit
iii.
Measures: ADHD checklist (filled out by parent or
teacher), DWT scores, demographic data
1. Retest:
logistic issues include number of days within which the test can be re-taken,
preferably within 3 weeks (see Amanda’s suggestion of previous doctoral
student’s experience with gaining access to schools across the country). Retest will be the same words in same order.
3.
Future CROW Sessions: The group agreed that it is interested in discussing a broad outline of
a group research project with roles organized around investigator, analyst, and
reviewer. Access to data may determine
some aspects of the project, as IRIS is not quite ready yet. Rodger noted that another data base source is
SafetyNet with Medicaid claims of FAHC and FQHC patients. These data may not tell the complete story of
a patient’s history of treatment, but other sources are also available. Our goal is to learn more about multi-level modeling through a team-based research
study. For discussion next
week.
a.
Jan 10: Kairn: F31 grant application for career
development of pre-doctoral fellows: stipend, research, and tuition for 2-5
years. CROW: review high level plan to
study and conduct research using IRIS and multi-level modeling.
b.
Jan 17: CROW research project plan
c.
Jan 24:
d.
Jan 31: Kairn: F31 update
e.
Feb 7:
f. Future
agenda to consider:
i.
Christina Cruz, 3rd year FM resident with
questionnaire for mild serotonin withdrawal syndrome on 12/6 or 12/13
ii.
Peter Callas or other faculty on multi-level modeling
Recorder: Connie van Eeghen
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.