Present: Abby
Crocker, Kairn Kelley, Amanda Kennedy, Ben Littenberg, Connie van Eeghen
1.
Start Up: Review
of our lunch time speaker: great background; a good fit for our organization?
2.
Presentation: Kairn’s
application for F31 to Deafness and Communications Disorders Due end of March; coming along. Progress made and continued during our
session:
a. Pediatric
practice support in rural central VT: enthusiastic! Consider asking Joe Hagan or other
pediatricians for letters of support as well.
b. Audiologist
support: still working on this. Want to
develop a clear research statement first.
c. Planning
to attend American Audiological Society conference in March, Phoenix AZ (and, decide
when to visit the Grand Canyon?)
d. Lit
Review-based opportunities discovered:
i.
Develop tests with good internal controls (i.e.
sensitive to APD in a setting of ADHD: able to determine if the subject stops
trying to achieve on the test, and starts to respond randomly).
ii.
Do rewards change the results of the test – and can
they help distinguish among children who have motivation issues versus APD
concerns?
iii.
Are there other ways to design tests to identify APD
regardless of motivation and normal “ants in the pants” issues?
1. For
example: are there markers for lack of good attendance, e.g. delays in response
or other measurable behaviors?
2. Consider
a “gold standard” of word pairs, with known relative “ease” or “hard” to test
for attention
3. Consider
changing volume to make words easy or hard to identify, testing for attention
iv.
What is the role of subject attentiveness in APD tests?
Can we measure it? Does it vary?
1. ADHD
kids are on one end of this scale. Is
the scale big enough to include non-ADHD, attention-challenged children?
2. Are
there other scales of attentiveness?
3. Can
you make a test for attentiveness? Ask a child psychologist.
4. Does
the length of the test matter?
5. Does
the beginning or ending of a test produce different results?
6. Do
incentives, after poor performance, make a difference?
7. For
these questions, the interesting scores are those that fail first, and then get
tested again.
v.
Is attentiveness a threat to APD testing?
e. Focus
the package of questions next. Reference
own strengths relative to the domain of the questions. Keep:
i.
Test-retest model of collecting data to assess tests
ii.
Inter-rater reliability
iii.
Aim 1: Test standard, clinically available tests with
no test/retest data – something useful in the clinical world. (This is a technology assessment question,
with a classic set of steps to address.) Not about accuracy; this is about
reliability. Collect additional data
about the kids to support other research questions (IQ…) This Aim needs a large sample size. Use this
to draw the progression of questions that leads to a K award.
1. Consider
the recruitment/selection process: purposefully selected children, everyone who
comes to the pediatrician’s office (like a population survey), only those
referred to audiology screening, only those referred with suspicion of APD, or
…
iv.
Aim 2: create a registry to be able to look for
patterns
v.
Sub-groups of interest
1. Age
of child (younger children more variable?)
2. Diagnoses
(ADHD)
3. Foster
or adopted kids
4. Kids
with IEP
5. …
vi.
Interventions that might make a difference (see d- iii
and iv above)
vii.
Test modifications (this is a risky question)
f. Complete
the professional development part of the application.
a.
Feb 7: Steve Kappel: Understanding/using VHCURES
b.
Feb 14: Abby: Breastfeeding manuscript (no Ben)
c.
Feb 21: Kairn: F31 (no Amanda)
d.
Feb 28: (no Connie, no Kairn)
e.
Mar 7: (no Ben, no Kairn)
f. Future
agenda to consider:
i.
Christina Cruz, 3rd year FM resident with
questionnaire for mild serotonin withdrawal syndrome?
ii.
Peter Callas or other faculty on multi-level modeling
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.