Ch 8. Personal observations, Surveys/questionnaires, Scientific research/method, and Analogies

Question 1

Personal Observations

Answer 1

Using what we see as evidence (eye-witness testimony)

Issues:
Not “pure” observations, filtered through set of expectations, values, beliefs and attitudes
Confirmation bias
Selective attention, inattentional blindness
Memory and stress may distort observations

Factors that improve quality:
Recency
Made by several people who are unbiased under optimal conditions with no apparent or strong expectations or biases
Supporting data aside from observations

Is personal observations a good source of evidence for HP?:
Essential but limits
Can be improved by: Accurate knowledge base and appropriate skills and expertise
Appropriate administration of objective assessments
Independent confirmation by other helping professionals

Personal experience is not the same as personal observations

Question 2

Surveys and questionnaires

Answer 2

Usually used to measure people’s behaviors, attitudes and beliefs

Are surveys/questionnaires valid for HP?:
Can provide useful information about:
Frequency of use of diagnostic or treatment approaches
Attitudes and beliefs about communication disorders
Concerns/issues faced by HP or people with communication disorders or their significant others

Question 3

3 factors that influence quality of evidence from surveys:

Answer 3

Honesty: Are the subjects giving honest answers?

Ambiguity: Questions may be subject to multiple interpretations

Biased wording: Way a question is asked has major effect on how it’s answered

Question 4

Scientific research studies/methods

Answer 4

Systematically collected observations by people trained to do scientific research
Obtaining publicly verifiable data

Is scientific research valid for HP?
Best available support for HP
Consider the 8 characteristics

Question 5

3 characteristics of scientific method that improves quality:

Answer 5

Replication/repeatability:
Publicly verifiable data
Used to minimize wishful thinking
Data obtained by optimal conditions where others can make similar research and get similar results
More replicable, more reliable

Control:
Using special procedures to reduce error in observations and interpretation of research findings
Ways of reducing bias and minimizing extraneous factors

Precision in language:
Precise and consistent terminology used to reduce confusion and ambiguity
Concepts redefined to be observable and measurable, not abstract

Question 6

8 considerations with scientific research (issues)

Answer 6

1. Quality
2. Singularity
   Single studies presented out of context of other studies often provide misleading information/conclusion
3. Prove rather than support
   Studies never prove a conclusion, only confirms
   Scientists make interpretations of findings and those interpretations are NOT truths
4. Bias
5. Distorting conclusions
   Usually when evidence is presented by someone else (media)
6. Out-dated
7. Artificiality
   Makes it difficult to generalize
8. COI
   Publish or perish

Question 7

Issues with rejecting scientific evidence too early

Answer 7

Impossible certainty fallacy:
Assuming research study should be rejected if not absolutely certain (searching for perfect solutions fallacy)
Certain is usually impossible, some uncertainty is to be expected

Question 8

3 factors for generalizing research study

Answer 8

1. Number of sample
2. Breadth (diversity) of sample
3. Randomness of sample

Question 9

When can you trust expert opinions?

Answer 9

1. You have avoided system 1 thinking
2. Expert opinions supported by evidence
3. No COI
4. Includes qualifying statements
5. Not universal and recognizes limits of applications
6. Studies of many experts overtime
7. Holds up to scrutiny of other experts
8. Sought out sources that discuss in-depth analysis of research claims
9. Sufficient quality of evidence

Question 10

Analogies

Answer 10

Comparison between 2 things, typically for purpose of explanation/clarification

Factors to consider:
In how many ways are the two things similar/different?
Are they actually similar?

Are analogies useful in HP?
Understanding and explaining complex information in simpler language for patients and clients
Breaking through mental block impeding understanding
Analogy studies consists of research that includes participants that are similar but not identical to target population

Question 11

Uncertainty

Answer 11

Low tolerance of uncertainty:
Professional anxiety
More diagnostic errors
Less searching for errors
Ignoring conflicting information (resolves via wishful thinking)

High tolerance of uncertainty:
Better cooperation with other specialists
Better management of uncertainty especially when backed by clinical experience