Clinical Research Oriented Workshop (CROW) Meeting: November 14, 2013

Present:  Marianne Burke, Kat Cheung, Abby Crocker, Kairn Kelley, Rodger Kessler, Ben Littenberg, Connie van Eeghen (by phone)

Start Up: Ben has been reading a Genghis Khan bio – a clever and thoughtful thug who developed a systematic communication process among illiterate troop leaders over thousands of miles – through song.  Abbie: the dustbowl of the Midwest and the socio-economic impact.  Kairn: Warmth of Other Suns: black migration in the US since the Reconstruction. 

1.                  Discussion: Kairn Kelley asked for feedback on a draft data collection form (parent questionnaire) and recruitment materials.  Kairn’s goal is to find a short, valid (face validity at a minimum) screening tool for use in her study.

a.       Materials shared:

                                                  i.      Screening instruments (two): Fisher’s and SIFTER

1.      Fisher’s: 1976, yes/no questions, not all are related to auditory processing disorders (APD).

2.      The group piloted tested 10 key questions on CROW members and their recollections of their children. May not discriminate between auditory and other issues (attentional, tone sensitivity, listening, understanding) but small sample of typically developing kids have scores below 3...  Focus: do these kids have any symptoms that might be related to APD?

                                                ii.      Article on children’s auditory processing scale – Appendix A: the scale itself – CHAPPS – most commonly used now, published 1992

                                              iii.      Symptoms of APD from Bellis and from AAA Clinical Guidelines (dated ~2010)

1.      The final page in this list, based on common behavioral manifestation, was suggested by the group as the best approach for developing a parent questionnaire.

2.      Questions could be parallel: “How often does your child (have difficulty with) …” with a scaled range of answers (e.g. 0-3) for 13 questions (highest score of 39), with missing answers not included in the average

3.      Another possible article to consider!  Look at Steckle (PHQ-9) to see a description of the development of this screening tool.

4.      CROW members rechecked their scores with this list of questions; looks like a good start.

b.      Research Questions:

                                                  i.      What is the reliability of dichotic test scores under test/retest repetition

                                                ii.      Do the different lists rank the children similarly

                                              iii.      Why don’t these tests give the same result each time (anything about the children that can help predict the size of differences)

c.       Analysis:

                                                  i.      Within subject variance (how much scores changed for each subject, time 1 to time 2)

                                                ii.      Number of children scores that changed category (normal/abnormal)

                                              iii.      Covariance of scores on different lists

                                              iv.      Predictive model including subject characteristics

d.      Today’s challenge: How to characterize subjects as having/not having APD issues

                                                  i.      Which questions get moved to parent questionnaire (see discussion under 1.a. above)

                                                ii.      These questionnaires have been used for multiple studies but have not been validated systematically

e.       Next steps:

                                                  i.      Draft instrument, to be sent around to CROW members for trialing

2.                  Next Workshop Meeting(s): Thursdays, 11:45 a.m. – 1:15 p.m., at Given Courtyard South Level 4.   

a.       November 21: Abby – data set diving for the Natural History of Opioids project

b.      Future agenda to consider:

                                                  i.      Peter Callas or other faculty on multi-level modeling

                                                ii.      Charlie MacLean: demonstration of Tableau; or Rodger’s examples of Prezi

                                              iii.      Journal article: Gomes, 2013, Opioid Dose and MVA in Canada (Charlie)

                                              iv.      Ben: Tukey chapter reading assignments, or other book of general interest

Recorder: Connie van Eeghen and Kairn Kelley