Present: Abby Crocker, Kairn Kelley, Amanda Kennedy, Rodger
Kessler, Ben Littenberg, Charlie MacLean, Connie van Eeghen
1.
Start Up: Ed
Havranek will be on campus on Friday, May 31; he is part of Denver Health (a
hospital affiliated with the teaching university but is not the teaching
hospital) which was the sole awardee of the AHRQ24. He may be available for a team meeting.
2.
Presentation: Kairn’s
Manuscript: Inter-Rater Reliability final draft
a. Kairn
and Ben were dispatched to the Cone of Silence (a 1960’s reference to Get
Smart!)
b. Charlie
suggested that the abstract start with a brief summary of the overall reason
for the study, in addition to the specific objectives listed. Amanda thought that the results were light in
the abstract. A reference in the conclusion
of the abstract was not in the results of the abstract. Last sentence can be dropped (in abstract).
c. Introduction:
Why the DWT? What is already known? Why this particular DWT? Introduction opening is very technical, but
OK for audiologists. The second
paragraph is elementary, for non-experts.
The “reliability” paragraph was more grant-like; who is the audience? Does this help them? Consider reversing the order of the last 2 paragraphs
of page 4. Consider dropping last
sentence of Introduction. Bring the
“purpose” up to the start of the Intro; why DWT and why Montcrieff.
d. Methods:
watch for wordiness that overtakes the accessibility of its meaning in
describing measures (“Agreement”). Why not analyze with dichotic pairs? Declare statistical software used.
e. Results:
Questioned use of headings. Put consent
stats in the text. What are the different
ways to think about DWTs and how to evaluate them. One part of the focus is on IRR; one part is
on word differences. The second takes a
little longer to get to and figure out.
f. Discussion:
the existence of other IRR studies comes up – is this the first time mentioned?
(No.) The discussion goes into how good some of the words are – is this article
about reliability more broadly?
g. Limitations:
the lack of knowledge and newness about the test. It is not clear that the sample is not
representative of a clinical population.
Was the test powered sufficiently to detect differences between words?
h. Appendix:
great! Provide a sample in the body of
the text?
i.
Ask school staff who provided support if willing to be
recognized in print.
j.
Final manuscript to be submitted in a week. Hooray!
3.
Summer sessions:
consider Wed 11:30 – 1:00 starting June 5.
Will ask Sylvie for help in figuring this out.
a.
April 25: Rodger: TBD (no Connie, Charlie, Kairn, or
Amanda)
b.
May 2: Abby: (no Connie, Ben)
c.
May 9: Charlie: Exploration of analytical plan for
Natural History of Acute Opioid Use (and perhaps more). Everyone should first read the 2009 Boudreau
article that Amanda found in her lit review, circulated on April 2.
d.
May 16:
e.
May 23:
f.
May 30:
g.
June 5: New summer schedule will start
h. 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)
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.