Present: Kairn Kelley, Rodger Kessler, Ben Littenberg, Connie
van Eeghen
Start Up: Did you know that presentations are like
articles, and co-authors should be informed of their name’s being used? New to one of us…
1.
Discussion: Kairn’s
update
a. Kairn
has been working on interpretation of the equations related to the findings of
her study. Her goal is to plan her
discussion for an audience of clinical audiologists.
i.
There is a FINER article on the correction of the
existing model (which needs covariance)
b. The
current paper may be focused on any one of interesting issues that Kairn is
curious about:
i.
How much change occurs on retest?
ii.
Is there a learning effect on the SCAN (the words
test); do most kids really do better?
iii.
Was there a test that was more reliable in than others?
1. Classification
(normal/abnormal) by Digits test was not consistent (because normal statistics
were applied to a skewed distribution)
2. Various
cut-offs for the Syllabus test were tried; none resulted in consistent
classification
iv.
Either the Digits test has false positives or the Words
test has false negatives
1. Kids
who did not do well with the Words test had parent reports of concerns (4/5 had
parent concerns)
v.
It is not possible to test ear difference on a 40 item
Words test (20 right and 20 left)
vi.
We know the detectable changes on each test; the
smallest effect that is > chance is larger than expected, i.e. the test
lacks precision. The minimally
detectable change is too large for use in normal clinical settings.
1. There
is little evidence of variability outside the binomial variation. If the sample size is large (item count on test),
better precision.
vii.
Although the population was assumed to be normal, but
parent report indicated otherwise for some, how do those score results differ
from the rest?
1. There
is a relationship across all the data; this is not a helpful outcome.
viii.
Virtues: the tests are stable over time, no extraneous
sources of variability, not tightly correlated (or not fully correlated) so not
measuring exactly the same thing, and no one should use a 40 item test. Areas
for investigation:
1. How
to build an efficient, more reliable test
2. How
to create a gold standard that is dependent on a construct: what do we mean by
auditory disorder
ix.
Key findings:
1. Repeatability
coefficient (graphed against the number of items: power log) for each test,
which could identify the number of items for a desired level of precision
x.
Focus of article:
1. How
big the changes were
2. Any
change score smaller than x is too small to be meaningful
3. The
tests are not long enough; don’t rely on them
4. Organize
by score or by category? Unsure
c. Next
steps:
i.
Rework draft and return to review
ii.
Consider an SBIR grant for an “item response” theory
driven derived (e.g. adaptive testing)
a.
November 19: Marianne’s update
b.
November 26: Cancelled
c.
December 3: Kairn’s 1st draft of manuscript
(no Ben)
d.
December 10: TBD (no Ben)
e.
December 17: Rodger on data set of “at-risk type 2 DM”
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.