Present: Marianne Burke, Kairn Kelley, Rodger Kessler, Ben
Littenberg, Connie van Eeghen
Start Up: FRED’s AV cables are kept in
the drawer on the screen – useful fact to know and remember! According to
Rodger, the only good gnocchi’s come from northern Italy. Ben, Rodger and Connie are waiting for
feedback from PCORI on an LOI – no news, in this case, is no news.
1.
Discussion:
Kairn’s research update
a. Kairn
previously sent out two documents describing her literature review:
i.
Spreadsheet with over 340 sources, with 7 studies that
identify trials with subjects
ii.
Whether there should be a formal, systematic level of
literature review (such as meeting inclusion criteria) is the subject of
today’s discussion
b. The
research question: what do we know about auditory tests to assess auditory
systems of children from 7-14?
i.
There is very little in the literature that met what
Kairn is looking for
ii.
Strategies for discussing what is known:
1. Chronological
story of the development of literature, little that there is. There are no norms or standardized assessment
methods. In fact, clinicians are told to
“collect your own norms,” but there is no structure for doing so.
2. Practice
guidelines – little offered
3. Bottom
line: little studied, unknown efficacy.
These tests have never been evaluated in a broad population (beyond
children referred for audiology testing) for routine clinical use.
c. This
literature review effort is intended to meet the requirements of the degree program
but could be used to write an article with a major finding, which also meets
the requirements. The Graduate College
wants to ensure that graduates know the basics of article generation; this can
be demonstrated in several ways. For example:
i.
Key milestones in the development of evidence
ii.
A biologically based assessment of plausibility for
those milestone-studies (NOT all of them)
iii.
Review of test development process, with pros/cons
1. Address
different tests, including experimental tests that have been discarded
2. Currently
available tests limited to a selected set
3. Known
intermediate outcomes on only those tests that are available. These may be limited (there is an average of
38 subjects per study of the 7 that Kairn has found), but can be evaluated
using a set of criteria that Kairn can develop
iv.
Conclusion: criticality of the need for Kairn’s
study. The level of detail should be
appropriate for a clinician audience of the journal; it will satisfy the
requirements of the committee.
d. Next
steps
i.
Document the methodology, with the criteria that were
the conditions of including and excluding the sources found (from the 340+),
for example:
1. Reference
source
2. Focused
on children
3. The
type of tests used, including their availability
ii.
This methodology may be different for different
milestones in the literature review, which is A-OK. Keep track of those that were useful; let go
of the others – this is a tightening exercise.
iii.
Develop a standard “lit review” data collection tool,
with the filters specified for each criteria. The literature will not make it easy, so
creating a tool to mine the data from the data is critical.
1. Were
the conclusions supported by the data and analysis?
2. Is
it germane to the topic?
iv.
Identify the weak studies, and cite them.
v.
Acknowledge what evidence does exist, regardless of how
much/little there is.
vi.
ETA for literature review draft: August 28
2.
Next Workshop Meeting(s): Thursdays, 11:30 a.m.
– 12:45 p.m., at Given Courtyard South Level 4. Remember: the first 15 minutes are for
checking in with each other.
a.
August 7: Marianne’s literature review with editor
comments (no Ben)
b.
August 14: Rodger’s SIM proposal
c.
August 21: Kairn: draft of literature review
d.
August 28:
Posts
