Clinical Research Oriented Workshop (CROW) Meeting: January 12, 2012

Present: Abby Crocker, Kairn Kelley, Amanda Kennedy, Connie van Eeghen

1. Start Up: Connie has a defense date: March 8, 2012 from 11:00 – 2:00. All are invited so please hold the date/time. We decided to convert that CROW session to “help make Connie even more nervous” day; look for details on how to “sign on” coming to you next month.

2. Presentation: Kairn is spending the semester conducting her literature review and drafting an article for publication based on her previously collected data. Her academic goals are a well defined research question and completed comps. Current lit review focus: comparison of commercially available tools to test children for auditory processing. Goal for the paper: the available tests and their strengths and weaknesses aimed at clinical audiologist audience. The group reviewed the “Development and Evidence of Reliability and Validity” chapter from SCAN-3, specifically asking “What do we know about the reliability of the competing words-free recall test?" (pages 66-67).

a. This document was a comparison of 10 auditory tests, some old, some new.

b. Tested Dec 2007, 156 adolescents, 12-15 years of age plus 34 ADP adolescents, 12-15 yrs

c. Measures: reliability (and precision and validity, eventually), as well as ease of directions for tester/testee, test means. Means and standard dev reported by test, age, and sample size

d. Reliability: accuracy, consistency, and stability of test scores across situations

i. Test-Retest stability: 48 children tested twice

ii. Table 5.7 – is this a test of mean differences. What makes these scores “adequate?”

1. Retest scores are higher

2. Stability is “excellent” based on some arbitrary cut points – Table 5.8

3. Table 5.9: Internal consistency – hard to follow

e. Start with domains (what the tests are expected to measure, such as “listening with competing signals”), not with position papers or tests, to organize the comparisons in the article. What are the evaluation parameters for judging these outcomes?

f. Next steps: review the position papers, identify domains and how discussed among position papers.

g. The ultimate goal is to define the disorder in a way that health care providers can be helpful. A maxim to help us all from Connie’s current dissertation efforts: “Research is less about getting at the truth than it is about reaching meaningful conclusions, deeper understanding, and useful results,” Trochim, (2001) Research Methods: The Concise Knowledge Base,1^st edition. Cincinnati, OH: Atomic Dog Publishing.

3. Workshop Goals for 2012:

a. Journal club: identify UVM guests and articles; invite to CROW ahead of time

b. Research updates: share work-in-process

4. Next Workshop Meeting(s): Thursday, 1:00 p.m. – 2:30 p.m., at Given Courtyard Level 4.

a. Jan 19: Chris Jones and Rodger’s article on QALI’s (no Connie, no Kairn)

b. Jan 26: Abby update and article to review (no Amanda, no Connie)

c. Feb 2: Rodger: discuss design for PCBH clinical and cost research. Meeting ends at 2:00 – one hour only? Or start early at 12:30? To be discussed at next session.

d. Feb 9: (no Ben, Amanda)

e. Feb 16: (no Connie, No Kairn)

f. Feb 23: Connie: oral presentation for defense (no Amanda)

g. Mar 1: (no Connie, ? Kairn)

h. Mar 8: Early start, for those available, 11:00 – 2:00, Connie’s dissertation defense

i. Mar 15: (no Ben, Connie)

j. Future agenda to consider:

i. Ben: budgeting exercise for grant applications

ii. Rodger: Mixed methods article; article on Behavior’s Influence on Medical Conditions (unpublished); drug company funding

iii. Amanda: presentation and interpretation of data in articles

iv. Sharon Henry: article by Cleland, Thoracic Spine Manipulation, Physical Therapy 2007

v. Future: Review of different types of journal articles (lit review, case study, original article, letter to editor…), when each is appropriate, tips on planning/writing (Abby)

Recorder: C. van Eeghen