Dataset Information

Reporting dream experience: Why (not) to be skeptical about dream reports.

ABSTRACT: Are dreams subjective experiences during sleep? Is it like something to dream, or is it only like something to remember dreams after awakening? Specifically, can dream reports be trusted to reveal what it is like to dream, and should they count as evidence for saying that dreams are conscious experiences at all? The goal of this article is to investigate the relationship between dreaming, dream reporting and subjective experience during sleep. I discuss different variants of philosophical skepticism about dream reporting and argue that they all fail. Consequently, skeptical doubts about the trustworthiness of dream reports are misguided, and for systematic reasons. I suggest an alternative, anti-skeptical account of the trustworthiness of dream reports. On this view, dream reports, when gathered under ideal reporting conditions and according to the principle of temporal proximity, are trustworthy (or transparent) with respect to conscious experience during sleep. The transparency assumption has the status of a methodologically necessary default assumption and is theoretically justified because it provides the best explanation of dream reporting. At the same time, it inherits important insights from the discussed variants of skepticism about dream reporting, suggesting that the careful consideration of these skeptical arguments ultimately leads to a positive account of why and under which conditions dream reports can and should be trusted. In this way, moderate distrust can be fruitfully combined with anti-skepticism about dream reporting. Several perspectives for future dream research and for the comparative study of dreaming and waking experience are suggested.

SUBMITTER: Windt JM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3819526 | biostudies-other | 2013

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Reporting dream experience: Why (not) to be skeptical about dream reports.

Windt Jennifer M JM

Frontiers in human neuroscience 20131107

Are dreams subjective experiences during sleep? Is it like something to dream, or is it only like something to remember dreams after awakening? Specifically, can dream reports be trusted to reveal what it is like to dream, and should they count as evidence for saying that dreams are conscious experiences at all? The goal of this article is to investigate the relationship between dreaming, dream reporting and subjective experience during sleep. I discuss different variants of philosophical skepti ...[more]

PMID: 24223542

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe Checklist for the Reporting of Updated Guidelines (CheckUp) was recently developed. However, so far, no systematic assessment of the reporting of updated clinical guidelines (CGs) exists. We aimed to examine (1) the completeness of reporting the updating process in CGs and (2) the inter-observer reliability of CheckUp.MethodsWe conducted a systematic assessment of the reporting of the updating process in a sample of updated CGs using CheckUp. We performed a systematic search to identify updated CGs published in 2015, developed by a professional society, reporting a systematic review of the evidence, and containing at least one recommendation. Three reviewers independently assessed the CGs with CheckUp (16 items). We calculated the median score per item, per domain, and overall, converting scores to a 10-point scale. Multiple linear regression analyses were used to identify differences according to country, type of organisation, scope, and health topic of updated CGs. We calculated the intraclass coefficient (ICC) and 95% confidence interval (95% CI) for domains and overall score.ResultsWe included in total 60 updated CGs. The median domain score on a 10-point scale for presentation was 5.8 (range 1.7 to 10), for editorial independence 8.3 (range 3.3 to 10), and for methodology 5.7 (range 0 to 10). The median overall score on a 10-point scale was 6.3 (range 3.1 to 10). Presentation and justification items at recommendation level (respectively reported by 27 and 38% of the CGs) and the methods used for the external review and implementing changes in practice were particularly poorly reported (both reported by 38% of the CGs). CGs developed by a European or international institution obtained a statistically significant higher overall score compared to North American or Asian institutions (p = 0.014). Finally, the agreement among the reviewers on the overall score was excellent (ICC 0.88, 95% CI 0.75 to 0.95).ConclusionsThe reporting of updated CGs varies considerably with significant room for improvement. We recommend using CheckUp to assess the updating process in updated CGs and as a blueprint to inform methods and reporting strategies in updating.

Project description:BackgroundClinicians, patients, and policy-makers rely on published evidence from clinical trials to help inform decision-making. A lack of complete and transparent reporting of the investigated trial outcomes limits reproducibility of results and knowledge synthesis efforts, and contributes to outcome switching and other reporting biases. Outcome-specific extensions for the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials (SPIRIT-Outcomes) and Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT-Outcomes) reporting guidelines are under development to facilitate harmonized reporting of outcomes in trial protocols and reports. The aim of this review was to identify and synthesize existing guidance for trial outcome reporting to inform extension development.MethodsWe searched for documents published in the last 10 years that provided guidance on trial outcome reporting using: an electronic bibliographic database search (MEDLINE and the Cochrane Methodology Register); a grey literature search; and solicitation of colleagues using a snowballing approach. Two reviewers completed title and abstract screening, full-text screening, and data charting after training. Extracted trial outcome reporting guidance was compared with candidate reporting items to support, refute, or refine the items and to assess the need for the development of additional items.ResultsIn total, 1758 trial outcome reporting recommendations were identified within 244 eligible documents. The majority of documents were published by academic journals (72%). Comparison of each recommendation with the initial list of 70 candidate items led to the development of an additional 62 items, producing 132 candidate items. The items encompassed outcome selection, definition, measurement, analysis, interpretation, and reporting of modifications between trial documents. The total number of documents supporting each candidate item ranged widely (median 5, range 0-84 documents per item), illustrating heterogeneity in the recommendations currently available for outcome reporting across a large and diverse sample of sources.ConclusionsOutcome reporting guidance for clinical trial protocols and reports lacks consistency and is spread across a large number of sources that may be challenging to access and implement in practice. Evidence and consensus-based guidance, currently in development (SPIRIT-Outcomes and CONSORT-Outcomes), may help authors adequately describe trial outcomes in protocols and reports transparently and completely to help reduce avoidable research waste.

Project description:Handwashing interventions are a priority in development and emergency aid programs. Evaluation of these interventions is essential to assess the effectiveness of programs; however, measuring handwashing is quite difficult. Although observations are considered valid, they are time-consuming and cost-ineffective; self-reports are highly efficient but considered invalid because desirable behaviour tends to be over-reported. Socially desirable responding has been claimed to be the main cause of inflated self-reports, but its underlying factors and mechanisms are understudied. The present study investigated socially desirable responding and additional potential explanatory factors for over-reported handwashing to identify indications for measures which mitigate over-reporting. Additionally, a script-based covert recall, an alternative interview question intended to mitigate recall errors and socially desirable responding, was developed and tested. Cross-sectional data collection was conducted in the Borena Zone, Ethiopia, through 2.5-hour observations and 1-hour interviews with the primary caregivers in households. A total sample of N = 554 was surveyed. Data were analysed with correlation and multiple regression analyses and dependent t-tests. Over-reporting of handwashing was associated with factors assumed to be involved in (1) socially desirable responding, (2) encoding and recall of information, and (3) dissonance processes. The latter two factor groups explained over-reported handwashing beyond socially desirable responding. The alternative interview question--script-based covert recall--reduced over-reporting compared to conventional self-reports. Although the difficulties involved in measuring handwashing by self-reports and observations are widely known, the present study is the first to investigate the factors which explain over-reporting of handwashing. This research contributes to the limited evidence base on a highly important subject: how to evaluate handwashing interventions efficiently and accurately.

Dataset Information

Reporting dream experience: Why (not) to be skeptical about dream reports.

Publications

Reporting dream experience: Why (not) to be skeptical about dream reports.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets