This week we were able to analyze four studies' methods to see what they did well and what could have been improved. Going through such an in-depth study of the procedure and seeing how well it aligned with the research question was interesting. It gave me ideas that changed what I had originally planned for my methods (which was too simple in regards to noting what ADHD symptoms were still present based on DSM-IV criteria), and set a more directed course for what I plan to do.
So far, what I feel most positive about is the way I can see if neurofeedback therapy had an effect: using personality/behavior scale or ratings, which are already certified, pre-determined ADHD diagnostic testing. Using the Conners Rating Scale or Wender Utah Scale are widely administered, so are easy to find online and are provided by the clinic I use. I am confident that this would be the best way to determine what symptoms persist or have lessened/been eliminated since the assigned number of sessions has transpired (usually around 30-40). I would be drawing a link between the test that was administered before the session started that my clinic does to show the patient their current psyche, and then I could administer the after test after the different number of sessions, hopefully with some patients closer to the end of their yearly treatment plan, so I can have a wide breadth and compare fewer sessions with more sessions on both adult and children groups. Of course, logistics have to be adjusted based on the patients that do end up consenting to be a part of this research.
What I am most nervous about is basically administering the tests myself. I do not know really why I am nervous, but I think I just generally get nervous doing things alone with people I do not know. Especially, in regards to gaining consent with the patients, even though I have come to know many of them, I can't rely on that knowledge to know for sure that they will be willing to be part of my study. I think I am most nervous about the asking part and explaining, because um, social interaction and that always makes me a little scared? But other than that, I am not so nervous about my procedure or my methods or even connecting to my research question. I hope I can glean some meaning from the results that actually make sense statistically. Making sure my method accounts for only the variable I want to know that was affected (number of ADHD symptoms) could also end up being a worry. But, I think it is best if I address this when I am analyzing the results, because I can find a statistical method to taking into account the correlation without the extraneous variables.
But, overall, I really am excited to actually start enacting the methods. It is something I have never done before like a real-life experiment almost. I have been a part of a lot of research projects and written science papers and stuff, but actually conducting the research by myself with actual people will be a whole new experience.
(532)
So far, what I feel most positive about is the way I can see if neurofeedback therapy had an effect: using personality/behavior scale or ratings, which are already certified, pre-determined ADHD diagnostic testing. Using the Conners Rating Scale or Wender Utah Scale are widely administered, so are easy to find online and are provided by the clinic I use. I am confident that this would be the best way to determine what symptoms persist or have lessened/been eliminated since the assigned number of sessions has transpired (usually around 30-40). I would be drawing a link between the test that was administered before the session started that my clinic does to show the patient their current psyche, and then I could administer the after test after the different number of sessions, hopefully with some patients closer to the end of their yearly treatment plan, so I can have a wide breadth and compare fewer sessions with more sessions on both adult and children groups. Of course, logistics have to be adjusted based on the patients that do end up consenting to be a part of this research.
What I am most nervous about is basically administering the tests myself. I do not know really why I am nervous, but I think I just generally get nervous doing things alone with people I do not know. Especially, in regards to gaining consent with the patients, even though I have come to know many of them, I can't rely on that knowledge to know for sure that they will be willing to be part of my study. I think I am most nervous about the asking part and explaining, because um, social interaction and that always makes me a little scared? But other than that, I am not so nervous about my procedure or my methods or even connecting to my research question. I hope I can glean some meaning from the results that actually make sense statistically. Making sure my method accounts for only the variable I want to know that was affected (number of ADHD symptoms) could also end up being a worry. But, I think it is best if I address this when I am analyzing the results, because I can find a statistical method to taking into account the correlation without the extraneous variables.
But, overall, I really am excited to actually start enacting the methods. It is something I have never done before like a real-life experiment almost. I have been a part of a lot of research projects and written science papers and stuff, but actually conducting the research by myself with actual people will be a whole new experience.
(532)
Sunskruthi -- first, thank you so much for the birthday card and gift. I'm lucky to have such a thoughtful, appreciative student.
ReplyDeleteSecond, I really like how you've gained more clarity, but I do have a few questions. Are the tests administered by the clinic different from the test you'll be administering? If so, how can you compare the results? Furthermore, why not just use the original test that the clinic uses?
Also, as far as social interaction, you have to be confident and trust in yourself. People will want to help you and be a part of your research, especially since they've already bought into neurofeedback therapy. So just move forward with confidence, as your own confidence will translate into people's confidence in you.
Also, you may want to ask a supervisor at the clinic if s/he would be willing to be there with you when you seek permission and administer tests? That might bolster your credibility, as well as make you feel more confident.
Hey Sunskruthi!!
ReplyDeleteHaha, I share your slight anxiety when interacting with strangers... but I think once you implement your methods with 1 or 2 patients, you'll find a groove! You seem to be really well-informed about and experienced with this topic, so you'll do amazing!
My question is about how you plan on following your test subjects (basically method type)... do you plan on going back to old tests and tracking improvement (retrospective study), do you plan to follow the same patients throughout their treatment, do you plan to do cross-sectional sampling where you see patients at different stages, or a mix of those? Depending on the time-frame for treatments to have effects, I think that option 2 or 3 may be the most robust for experimental design, but 1 could be the most feasible.
Just some stuff to consider. Keep up the good work!
YP
(145)
Hi Sunskruthi,
ReplyDeleteI also have no idea how to communicate with total strangers. I guess we are all Erwins at this point. But remember the first interaction is always the hardest. In college interviews, I super nervous about the first one, but after that I was like hitting all the points i wanted to discuss and I was extremely confident in my skills. I am sure my experience is similar to interacting with others. So don't lose hope! If Erwin can do it, we all can. In terms of your methods, I think that you need to consider the timeline available. So I would go with a method that limits continued interaction with patients and favors more participants instead. Thus, even in the worst case scenario you still have data to work with.
-
Ashwath V.