Tuesday, February 26, 2013

Clinical Research Oriented Workshop (CROW) Meeting: Feb 21, 2013

Present: Marianne Burke, Abby Crocker, Kairn Kelley, Amanda Kennedy, Charlie MacLean, Connie van Eeghen
1.                  Start Up:   The vagaries of typeface: control 0 gives you a shadowed check box.  Who would’ve thought?

2.                  Presentation: Kairn Kelley – F31 Update
a.       Good news: positive feedback from Program Officer, so far.
b.      Goal: Test the reliability of a suite of dichotic listening tests – what is the framework for this goal.  Kairn developed a model which is, to some degree, represented below.

c.       The model has a lot of variables (see Response Channel, top right box), each of which can be answered, but in different ways.  The focus of this study is Test/Retest, so this is what the design will be based on.
d.      Aims:
                                                  i.      Establish norms for the test as applied to the population being studied
                                                ii.      Determine how to measure reliability (one or more methods).  Determine exactly what concepts are being addressed: test reliability, ear advantage, test comparisons, work comparisons – they are all about stability, but not all are about reliability.  The design plan is to randomize the tests and the items, but not randomize which ear hears which item during the tests.  Charlie’s question: what is the meaning of the results obtained?  There is agreement that the results are interpretable and actionable.
                                              iii.      Is there a difference in the reliability of the test results for children that have specific diagnoses: attention deficits, oppositional problems, or depression?  (These can be measured in a variety of ways: clinical diagnosis, treatment for a diagnosis, parent survey, patient survey,… The easiest may be the NICHQ Vanderbilt Assessment Scale already in use in the target pediatrician’s office) This is the same test/retest process with a different population.  From a feasibility perspective, there may be an advantage to reconsidering other settings, especially in the schools.

3.                  Next Workshop Meeting(s): Thursday, 2:00 p.m. – 3:30 p.m., at Given Courtyard South Level 4. 
a.       Feb 28: Rodger – PCORI (no Connie, no Kairn)
b.      Mar 7: Connie: poster review (no Ben, no Kairn)
c.       Mar 14: Charlie: VCHURES Opiate Data Mining (everyone will be here!)
d.      Mar 21: Kairn: F31
e.       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
                                              iii.      Charlie MacLean: demonstration of Tableau
                                              iv.      Journal article: Gomes, 2013, Opioid Dose and MVA in Canada (Charlie)

Recorder: Connie van Eeghen

1 comment:

  1. I attempted Charlie's checkbox shortcut and I am horrified to report that I couldn't get it to work. I demand an investigation!



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