Regression assumptions in clinical psychology research practice-a systematic review of common misconceptions.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Ernst AF
PROVIDER: S-EPMC5436580 | biostudies-literature | 2017
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Regression assumptions in clinical psychology research practice-a systematic review of common misconceptions.
Ernst Anja F AF Albers Casper J CJ
PeerJ 20170516
Misconceptions about the assumptions behind the standard linear regression model are widespread and dangerous. These lead to using linear regression when inappropriate, and to employing alternative procedures with less statistical power when unnecessary. Our systematic literature review investigated employment and reporting of assumption checks in twelve clinical psychology journals. Findings indicate that normality of the variables themselves, rather than of the errors, was wrongfully held for ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:Myths in Psychology are beliefs that are widely spread and inconsistent with the empirical evidence available within this field of knowledge. They are characterized by being relatively stable, resistant to change, and prevalent both among the non-academic population and among students and professionals within this discipline. The aim of this study was to analyse the prevalence of these myths among Spanish psychology students and the influence of three variables: the type of university, face-to-face (UAM) and online (UNED), the academic year in which participants were enrolled and familiarity with scientific dissemination. Results show that participants from the face-to-face university, enrolled in higher academic years and that reports familiarity with scientific dissemination believe less in myths than those from the online university, enrolled in lower years and that report no familiarity with scientific dissemination.
| S-EPMC9375966 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundIn the past forty years, many gains have been made in our understanding of the concept of research utilization. While numerous studies exist on professional nurses' use of research in practice, no attempt has been made to systematically evaluate and synthesize this body of literature with respect to the extent to which nurses use research in their clinical practice. The objective of this study was to systematically identify and analyze the available evidence related to the extent to which nurses use research findings in practice.MethodsThis study was a systematic review of published and grey literature. The search strategy included 13 online bibliographic databases: Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, HAPI, Web of Science, SCOPUS, OCLC Papers First, OCLC WorldCat, ABI Inform, Sociological Abstracts, and Dissertation Abstracts. The inclusion criteria consisted of primary research reports that assess professional nurses' use of research in practice, written in the English or Scandinavian languages. Extent of research use was determined by assigning research use scores reported in each article to one of four quartiles: low, moderate-low, moderate-high, or high.ResultsFollowing removal of duplicate citations, a total of 12,418 titles were identified through database searches, of which 133 articles were retrieved. Of the articles retrieved, 55 satisfied the inclusion criteria. The 55 final reports included cross-sectional/survey (n = 51) and quasi-experimental (n = 4) designs. A sensitivity analysis, comparing findings from all reports with those rated moderate (moderate-weak and moderate-strong) and strong quality, did not show significant differences. In a majority of the articles identified (n = 38, 69%), nurses reported moderate-high research use.ConclusionsAccording to this review, nurses' reported use of research is moderate-high and has remained relatively consistent over time until the early 2000's. This finding, however, may paint an overly optimistic picture of the extent to which nurses use research in their practice given the methodological problems inherent in the majority of studies. There is a clear need for the development of standard measures of research use and robust well-designed studies examining nurses' use of research and its impact on patient outcomes. The relatively unchanged self-reports of moderate-high research use by nurses is troubling given that over 40 years have elapsed since the first studies in this review were conducted and the increasing emphasis in the past 15 years on evidence-based practice. More troubling is the absence of studies in which attempts are made to assess the effects of varying levels of research use on patient outcomes.
| S-EPMC3068972 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionOver 25 years, emergency medicine in the United States has amassed a large evidence base that has been systematically assessed and interpreted through ACEP Clinical Policies. While not previously studied in emergency medicine, prior work has shown that nearly half of all recommendations in medical specialty practice guidelines may be based on limited or inconclusive evidence. We sought to describe the proportion of clinical practice guideline recommendations in Emergency Medicine that are based upon expert opinion and low level evidence.MethodsSystematic review of clinical practice guidelines (Clinical Policies) published by the American College of Emergency Physicians from January 1990 to January 2016. Standardized data were abstracted from each Clinical Policy including the number and level of recommendations as well as the reported class of evidence. Primary outcomes were the proportion of Level C equivalent recommendations and Class III equivalent evidence. The primary analysis was limited to current Clinical Policies, while secondary analysis included all Clinical Policies.ResultsA total of 54 Clinical Policies including 421 recommendations and 2801 cited references, with an average of 7.8 recommendations and 52 references per guideline were included. Of 19 current Clinical Policies, 13 of 141 (9.2%) recommendations were Level A, 57 (40.4%) Level B, and 71 (50.4%) Level C. Of 845 references in current Clinical Policies, 67 (7.9%) were Class I, 272 (32.3%) Class II, and 506 (59.9%) Class III equivalent. Among all Clinical Policies, 200 (47.5%) recommendations were Level C equivalent, and 1371 (48.9%) of references were Class III equivalent.ConclusionsEmergency medicine clinical practice guidelines are largely based on lower classes of evidence and a majority of recommendations are expert opinion based. Emergency medicine appears to suffer from an evidence gap that should be prioritized in the national research agenda and considered by policymakers prior to developing future quality standards.
| S-EPMC5476239 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Despite advances in its scientific understanding, dyslexia is still associated with rampant public misconceptions. Here, we trace these misconceptions to the interaction between two intuitive psychological principles: Dualism and Essentialism. We hypothesize that people essentialize dyslexia symptoms that they anchor in the body. Experiment 1 shows that, when dyslexia is associated with visual confusions (b/d reversals)-symptoms that are naturally viewed as embodied (in the eyes), laypeople consider dyslexia as more severe, immutable, biological, and heritable, compared to when dyslexia is linked to difficulties with phonological decoding (a symptom seen as less strongly embodied). Experiments 2-3 show that the embodiment of symptoms plays a causal role in promoting essentialist thinking. Experiment 2 shows that, when participants are provided evidence that the symptoms of dyslexia are embodied (i.e., they "show up" in a brain scan), people are more likely to consider dyslexia as heritable compared to when the same symptoms are diagnosed behaviorally (without any explicit evidence for the body). Finally, Experiment 3 shows that reasoning about the severity of dyslexia symptoms can be modulated by manipulating people's attitudes about the mind/body links, generally. These results show how public attitudes towards psychological disorders arise from the very principles that make the mind tick.
| S-EPMC8638985 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Pictorial blood loss assessment charts (PBACs) represent the most widely used method to assess menstrual blood loss (MBL) in clinical trials. The aims of this review were to: (1) determine the diagnostic accuracy of PBACs that have been validated against the reference alkaline hematin technique; (2) categorize the pitfalls of using obsolete and nonvalidated charts; (3) provide guidelines for development of a new PBAC or use of an existing chart to measure MBL in clinical trials; and (4) consider the feasibility of using pictorial charts in primary care. METHODS:A literature review was conducted using Embase and MEDLINE databases. The review identified reports of women with self-perceived or actual heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB), bleeding disorders, abnormal uterine bleeding, leiomyomata (uterine fibroids) or endometriosis, and women undergoing treatment for HMB, as well as those with normal menstrual periods. Data were reviewed from studies that focused on the development and validation of PBACs and from those that used derivative noncertified charts to assess HMB. RESULTS:Nine studies reported validation of PBAC scoring systems against the alkaline hematin technique. Across these studies, the sensitivity was 58-97%, the specificity was 7.5-95.5%, the positive and negative likelihood ratios were 1.1-13.8 and 0.14-0.56, respectively, and the diagnostic odds ratio was 2.6-52.4. The cut-off score above which the diagnosis of HMB was made ranged from 50 to 185. Several modifications of these PBACs were used in other studies; however, objective confirmation of their validity was not reported. Overall, there was widespread inconsistency of chart design, scoring systems, diagnostic cut-off limits and post-treatment outcome measures. CONCLUSIONS:PBACs are best suited to the controlled and specific environment of clinical studies, where clinical outcome parameters are defined. The current lack of standardization precludes widespread use of the PBAC in primary care. REVIEW REGISTRATION NUMBER:PROSPERO international prospective register of systematic reviews: CRD42016030083.
| S-EPMC7011238 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundPractitioner-level implementation interventions such as audit and feedback, communities of practice, and local opinion leaders have shown potential to change nurses' behaviour in clinical practice and improve patients' health. However, their effectiveness remains unclear. Moreover, we have a paucity of data regarding the use of theory in implementation studies with nurses, the causal processes-i.e. mechanisms of action-targeted by interventions to change nurses' behaviour in clinical practice, and the constituent components-i.e. behaviour change techniques-included in interventions. Thus, our objectives are threefold: (1) to examine the effectiveness of practitioner-level implementation interventions in changing nurses' behaviour in clinical practice; (2) to identify, in included studies, the type and degree of theory use, the mechanisms of action targeted by interventions and the behaviour change techniques constituting interventions and (3) to examine whether intervention effectiveness is associated with the use of theory or with specific mechanisms of action and behaviour change techniques.MethodsWe will conduct a systematic review based on the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organization of Care (EPOC) Group guidelines. We will search six databases (CINAHL, EMBASE, ERIC, PsycINFO, PubMed and Web of Science) with no time limitation for experimental and quasi-experimental studies that evaluated practitioner-level implementation interventions aiming to change nurses' behaviour in clinical practice. We will also hand-search reference lists of included studies. We will perform screening, full-text review, risk of bias assessment, and data extraction independently with the Covidence systematic review software. We will assess the quality of evidence using the GRADEpro software. We will code included studies independently for theory use (Theory Coding Scheme), mechanisms of action (coding guidelines from Michie) and behaviour change techniques (Behaviour Change Technique Taxonomy v1) with QSR International's NVivo qualitative data analysis software. Meta-analyses will be performed using the Review Manager (RevMan) software. Meta-regression analyses will be performed with IBM SPSS Statistics software.DiscussionThis review will inform knowledge users and researchers interested in designing, developing and evaluating implementation interventions to support nurses' behaviour change in clinical practice. Results will provide key insights regarding which causal processes-i.e. mechanisms of action-should be targeted by these interventions, and which constituent components-i.e. behaviour change techniques-should be included in these interventions to increase their effectiveness.Systematic review registrationThe protocol has been registered at the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO; registration number: CRD42019130446).
| S-EPMC6896305 | biostudies-literature
Project description:AimTo explore health professionals' intentional behaviour and what determines their intention to use products of research in clinical practice.BackgroundTrying to get research and products of research into clinical practice is an enduring problem. A clearer picture is emerging as to how individual practitioners respond toward practical problems of changing clinical practice, but this does not include health professionals' intentions to use products of research and what influences their intentions.DesignSystematic Review and Narrative Synthesis.Data sourcesFive databases were searched systematically. This included BNI, HMIC, Psych INFO, CINHAL and MEDLINE; articles published in the English language only were included.Review methodsPRISMA guidelines were used as a framework for structuring the review and methods of narrative synthesis to analyse study outcomes.ResultsEighteen studies matched the final inclusion criteria. All studies used questionnaires to measure intention. Most studies involved Nurses or Physicians. Nurses' intentions were mostly influenced by their perceived ability to use guidelines in their practice. Physicians' intentions were often influenced by their perceptions of the usefulness and relevance of the guideline and peer pressure amongst the professional group. Practice habits, when added to intentional models were also predictive of intentional behaviour. In studies that compared intentions with behaviour, the level of intention often did not match self-report or actual behaviour.
| S-EPMC5047343 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Hypotheses about change over time are central to informing our understanding of development. Developmental neuroscience is at critical juncture: although the majority of longitudinal imaging studies have observations with two time points, researchers are increasingly obtaining three or more observations of the same individuals. The goals of the proposed manuscript are to draw upon the long history of methodological and applied literature on longitudinal statistical models to summarize common problems and issues that arise in their use. We also provide suggestions and solutions to improve the design, analysis and interpretation of longitudinal data, and discuss the importance of matching the theory of change with the appropriate statistical model used to test the theory. Researchers should articulate a clear theory of change and to design studies to capture that change and use appropriately sensitive measures to assess that change during development. Simulated data are used to demonstrate several common analytic approaches to longitudinal analyses. We provide the code for our simulations and figures in an online supplement to aid researchers in exploring and plotting their data. We provide brief examples of best practices for reporting such models. Finally, we clarify common misunderstandings in the application and interpretation of these analytic approaches.
| S-EPMC6969276 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundClinical practice guidelines (CPGs) are widely used to inform the development of protocols for clinical management. Previous work has demonstrated that the quality of CPGs varies widely. This systematic review aimed to determine the quality of CPGs in kidney transplantation in the UK.MethodsCPGs in kidney transplantation published between 2010 and 2017 were identified through searches of MEDLINE, NHS NICE Evidence, and websites of relevant UK societies. Using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II tool, three appraisers rated the quality of CPGs across six domains, the overall quality of each CPG, and whether it should be recommended for future use. Domain scores were calculated, and inter-rater reliability using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was reported.ResultsThirteen CPGs met the inclusion criteria. The domain 'clarity of presentation' scored highest, followed closely by 'scope and purpose'. The poorest scoring domains were 'applicability' and 'editorial independence'. Editorial independence also had the widest range of scores. Of the 13 CPGs, one was not recommended for future use, seven were recommended for use with modifications, and five for future use with no need for modification. Mean overall CPG quality was 5 (range 3-6) of a maximum score of 7, and mean inter-rater reliability was substantial with an ICC of 0·71.ConclusionUK CPGs scored satisfactorily, although with wide variation in how well each domain scored both within and across CPGs. The quality of UK CPGs can still be improved.
| S-EPMC5989947 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionClinical practice guidelines can improve healthcare processes and patient outcomes, but are often of low quality. Guideline appraisal tools aim to help potential guideline users in assessing guideline quality. We conducted a systematic review of publications describing guideline appraisal tools in order to identify and compare existing tools.MethodsAmong others we searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews from 1995 to May 2011 for relevant primary and secondary publications. We also handsearched the reference lists of relevant publications. On the basis of the available literature we firstly generated 34 items to be used in the comparison of appraisal tools and grouped them into thirteen quality dimensions. We then extracted formal characteristics as well as questions and statements of the appraisal tools and assigned them to the items.ResultsWe identified 40 different appraisal tools. They covered between three and thirteen of the thirteen possible quality dimensions and between three and 29 of the possible 34 items. The main focus of the appraisal tools were the quality dimensions "evaluation of evidence" (mentioned in 35 tools; 88%), "presentation of guideline content" (34 tools; 85%), "transferability" (33 tools; 83%), "independence" (32 tools; 80%), "scope" (30 tools; 75%), and "information retrieval" (29 tools; 73%). The quality dimensions "consideration of different perspectives" and "dissemination, implementation and evaluation of the guideline" were covered by only twenty (50%) and eighteen tools (45%) respectively.ConclusionsMost guideline appraisal tools assess whether the literature search and the evaluation, synthesis and presentation of the evidence in guidelines follow the principles of evidence-based medicine. Although conflicts of interest and norms and values of guideline developers, as well as patient involvement, affect the trustworthiness of guidelines, they are currently insufficiently considered. Greater focus should be placed on these issues in the further development of guideline appraisal tools.
| S-EPMC3857289 | biostudies-literature