Dataset Information

Some Behaviorial Science Measurement Concerns and Proposals.

ABSTRACT: Primarily from a measurement standpoint, we question some basic beliefs and procedures characterizing the scientific study of human behavior. The relations between observed and unobserved variables are key to an empirical approach to building explanatory theories and we are especially concerned about how the former are used as proxies for the latter. We believe that behavioral science can profitably reconsider the prevailing version of this arrangement because of its vulnerability to limiting idiosyncratic aspects of observed/unobserved variable relations. We describe a general measurement approach that takes into account idiosyncrasies that should be irrelevant to the measurement process but can intrude and may invalidate it in ways that distort and weaken relations among theoretically important variables. To clarify further our major concerns, we briefly describe one version of the measurement approach that fundamentally supports the individual as the primary unit of analysis orientation that we believe should be preeminent in the scientific study of human behavior.

SUBMITTER: Nesselroade JR

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4990147 | biostudies-literature | 2016 Mar-Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Some Behaviorial Science Measurement Concerns and Proposals.

Nesselroade John R JR Molenaar Peter C M PC

Multivariate behavioral research 20160301 2-3

Primarily from a measurement standpoint, we question some basic beliefs and procedures characterizing the scientific study of human behavior. The relations between observed and unobserved variables are key to an empirical approach to building explanatory theories and we are especially concerned about how the former are used as proxies for the latter. We believe that behavioral science can profitably reconsider the prevailing version of this arrangement because of its vulnerability to limiting id ...[more]

PMID: 27248831

Similar Datasets

Project description:With the current funding climate and need for advancements in implementation science, there is a growing demand for grantsmanship workshops to increase the quality and rigor of proposals. A group-based implementation science-focused grantsmanship workshop, the Implementation Development Workshop (IDW), is one methodology to address this need. This manuscript provides an overview of the IDW structure, format, and findings regarding its utility.The IDW methodology allows researchers to vet projects in the proposal stage in a structured format with a facilitator and two types of expert participants: presenters and attendees. The presenter uses a one-page handout and verbal presentation to present their proposal and questions. The facilitator elicits feedback from attendees using a format designed to maximize the number of unique points made. After each IDW, participants completed an anonymous survey assessing perceptions of the IDW. Presenters completed a funding survey measuring grant submission and funding success. Qualitative interviews were conducted with a subset of participants who participated in both delivery formats. Mixed method analyses were performed to evaluate the effectiveness and acceptability of the IDW and compare the delivery formats. Of those who participated in an IDW (N = 72), 40 participated in face-to-face only, 16 in virtual only, and 16 in both formats. Thirty-eight (face-to-face n = 12, 35 % response rate; virtual n = 26, 66.7 % response rate) responded to the surveys and seven (15.3 % response rate), who had attended both formats, completed an interview. Of 36 total presenters, 17 (face-to-face n = 12, 42.9 % response rate; virtual n = 5, 62.9 % response rate) responded to the funding survey. Mixed method analyses indicated that the IDW was effective for collaboration and growth, effective for enhancing success in obtaining grants, and acceptable. A third (35.3 %) of presenters ultimately received funding for their proposal, and more than 80 % of those who presented indicated they would present again in the future. The IDW structure and facilitation process were found to be acceptable, with both formats rated as equally strong.The IDW presents an acceptable and successful methodology for increasing competitiveness of implementation science grant proposals.

Project description:Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) have been increasingly criticized for how they review protocols, but how IRBs perceive, and make decisions about, the quality of the science of protocols has not been examined.To explore how and when IRBs view and make decisions about the quality of the science of studies they review.I contacted the leadership of 60 IRBs (every fourth one in the list of the top 240 institutions by National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding) and interviewed IRB chairs, co-chairs, administrators, and a director from 34 IRBs (response rate = 55%), and an additional 7 members.Interviewees faced several ambiguities and questions concerning the quality of the science of protocols. IRBs are often not sure how and to what extent to evaluate the science of protocols, whether the science should be 'good enough' (and if so, what that means) versus as good as possible. Federal regulations state that IRBs should ensure that risks are minimized, and commensurate with benefits. Thus, at times IRBs feel that changing the science is ethically necessary. But IRBs also then struggle with whether to adopt a higher threshold (1) that social and thus scientific benefits be maximized and (2) that scientific efforts and resources should not be wasted. Committees face dilemmas - for example, if a 'perfect' study is not feasible. For protocols already approved elsewhere (e.g., by the NIH), IRBs vary in how much they feel they can request alterations, and sometimes make changes nonetheless. Larger institutional contexts and biases can shape these issues, and IRBs differ in how much they are 'pro-research', and have sufficient expertise. IRBs at times also approve studies despite reservations about the science.This study includes interviews with IRBs, but not observations of IRB meetings.IRBs often face ambiguities and conflicting goals in assessing scientific quality. Many IRBs try to improve the science beyond what the regulations mandate. These data have important implications for improving practice, education, research, and policy.

Project description:AIMS:The goals of these analyses were to examine the psychometric properties and measurement equivalence of a self-reported cognition measure, the Patient Reported Outcome Measurement Information System® (PROMIS®) Applied Cognition - General Concerns short form. These items are also found in the PROMIS Cognitive Function (version 2) item bank. This scale consists of eight items related to subjective cognitive concerns. Differential item functioning (DIF) analyses of gender, education, race, age, and (Spanish) language were performed using an ethnically diverse sample (n = 5,477) of individuals with cancer. This is the first analysis examining DIF in this item set across ethnic and racial groups. METHODS:DIF hypotheses were derived by asking content experts to indicate whether they posited DIF for each item and to specify the direction. The principal DIF analytic model was item response theory (IRT) using the graded response model for polytomous data, with accompanying Wald tests and measures of magnitude. Sensitivity analyses were conducted using ordinal logistic regression (OLR) with a latent conditioning variable. IRT-based reliability, precision and information indices were estimated. RESULTS:DIF was identified consistently only for the item, brain not working as well as usual. After correction for multiple comparisons, this item showed significant DIF for both the primary and sensitivity analyses. Black respondents and Hispanics in comparison to White non-Hispanic respondents evidenced a lower conditional probability of endorsing the item, brain not working as well as usual. The same pattern was observed for the education grouping variable: as compared to those with a graduate degree, conditioning on overall level of subjective cognitive concerns, those with less than high school education also had a lower probability of endorsing this item. DIF was also observed for age for two items after correction for multiple comparisons for both the IRT and OLR-based models: "I have had to work really hard to pay attention or I would make a mistake" and "I have had trouble shifting back and forth between different activities that require thinking". For both items, conditional on cognitive complaints, older respondents had a higher likelihood than younger respondents of endorsing the item in the cognitive complaints direction. The magnitude and impact of DIF was minimal. The scale showed high precision along much of the subjective cognitive concerns continuum; the overall IRT-based reliability estimate for the total sample was 0.88 and the estimates for subgroups ranged from 0.87 to 0.92. CONCLUSION:Little DIF of high magnitude or impact was observed in the PROMIS Applied Cognition - General Concerns short form item set. One item, "It has seemed like my brain was not working as well as usual" might be singled out for further study. However, in general the short form item set was highly reliable, informative, and invariant across differing race/ethnic, educational, age, gender, and language groups.

Dataset Information

Some Behaviorial Science Measurement Concerns and Proposals.

Publications

Some Behaviorial Science Measurement Concerns and Proposals.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets