Re: Dr. Phil-Study validity

[Guest guest]

All,

When I took Statistics and had to do my own " study " for my thesis and had to

decide if I wanted to do a qualitative, quantitive, or subjective (observation)

study and have conclusions, I realized, data is data and can be " skewed " to

prove the author's point depending on how the author presented the data.

I had to review a study another author had done on testing in the hospital and

what the costs were. Well, the to study was " skewed " as the author of the first

study would put, for example, ultrasounds in one heading and the costs, when in

fact, she missed data that was labeled kidney ultrasounds, bladder ultrasounds,

etc.

So, her study was a misrepresentation of the total costs the hospital spent as

she left out hundreds of items of data as she did not know how to present the

data factually. So, in conclusion, manipulation of the data, can skew a study.

As states, there are facts to consider when reading these types of

studies, the demographics of the study, number of participants, random or

numbered, is they're a control reference. There are guidelines for criteria of

testing the validity of a study but when it comes to human participants and

human reviewers, they can be inherently skewed.

This is all scientific jargon and I aways read the results first, then go back

and read the article comparing it to the article and the criteria. In the

criteria, it should state the number of participants reviewed, demographic (for

instance, elderly participants, surgical participants, etc)Observational

studies, though, peer reviewed, can be inherently skewed dependent on the

reviewer of the participants.

The APA (American Psychiatric Association) is the worst about this. Sorry,

, I know you are studying Psychology The example for this is that

Piaget did an study on the stages of development of children as if it was " all

children " and it became " the law " for this subject for years. Well, hearing this

and reading the stages, you would assume he observed hundreds of children, when,

in fact, he reviewed only his own three children.

Kohlberg's model on this subject also was the assumption of all children when,

in fact, he observed only males.

Remember that the panel of experts are usually all of like mind and if you got

one " expert " that is not, the assumptions would change and probably the

conclusion when talking about people reviewing them as many article outcomes

have been challenged and changed because of the likemindness of experts.

Thats why you see in many legal TV series for example, the two spectrums of

studies, stating a subject is or is not correct depending on the conclusion they

want represented. Maybe a poor visual but you get an insight into the term

" inherently skewed " when talking about a human perspective.

Studies on specific subjects, especially the quantitate, are hard to read (for

me anyway) and have those inserts with graphs and a control start and then

conclusion. Well, another author could take that same information and " skew " it

to their perspective, even though facts are concerned.

So, I understand what " inherently skewed means " in that perspective. Assumptions

should be presented in observational studies.Quantitive studies, although, quite

factual, could include or omit facts because the data was manipulated, not

included, or misrepresented.

For each peer reviewed, scientific study, you can find one on the same subject

that presents a completely different perspective. For example, on Spine

Universe, when they include an article, they have other authors that

rubute,agree, or ask the author to expand the study for more substantiated

conclusion.

For this reason, every time I research a subject or hear one presented

emphatically, I will turn around and research an opposite conclusion on the

subject and can find them. I then I make an assumption from what I need to get

from the facts presented.

I recently read a peer reviewed article about back fusion patients but it was

only from a group of a hundred patients from the same surgeon. Well, I would

have like to seen the results from a group from several different surgeons so

that it could be comparative and if the outcome could be different depending on

the difference in surgeons and their procedural practices.

I also like to read articles or studies posted in Spine Universe, although peer

reviewed, they will have an expert of the same subject speciality of the

article, challenge the validity of the study and it allows the reader to

consider that although you read journal studies, or medical studies the studies

can be inherently skewed and always read an " counter journal article " so to

speak, to get a broad view of the subject .

That is what I consider " inherently skewed, " no matter the outcome, the data

inherently has the possibility to be skewed as criteria is based on assumptions

that this or that occurs and assumptions can be skewed in any situations, thus

changing the outcome. Just my opinion. Hey, it happens on TV, so it must be true

: )

This is the way I have to look at it to process the subject matter. Bennie

[Guest guest]

Excellent points, Bennie, ones which I neglected to consider in my post

(perhaps it was inherently skewed to reflect my own personal opinions on

studies ;-) ).

One point I want to add to, though, is the one I copied below. My favorite

example of this point-counterpoint exchange in the scholarly literature is

in " special issues " of peer-reviewed journals. In many of them, I will read

the title of the first article, and it will be something along the lines of

" New Study Reveals Such-and-Such Paradigm is Outdated " by Author A.

Then, the second article will be, " Response to 'New Study Reveals

Such-and-Such Paradigm is Outdated' " by Author B.

Then, the third article will be, " Rebuttal to 'Response to New Study Reveals

Such-and-Such Paradigm is Outdated' " by Author A. (again).

Then here comes the fourth article, " Why We Should Accept Results of 'New

Study Reveals Such-and-Such Paradigm is Outdated' " by Author A., Author C.,

and Author D.

Then, the fifth, " Challenge to 'Why We Should Accept the Results of New

Study Reveals Such-and-Such Paradigm to be Outdated' " by Author B., Author

E., and Author F.

And the sixth may be something sarcastic, like " Why We Should Not Accept

Results of New Study to Reveal Such-and-Such Paradigm to be Outdated " by

Author E.., Author F., Author G., and Author H.

And then the seventh may be something cute or clever, such as " Results of

New Study Not So New: A Review of Literature Going Back to [insert year at

least two decades ago here] " by Author B., Author F., and Author H.

And it just goes on and on, the entire " special issue " being basically a mud

fight between a bunch of the same handful authors who have the entire

special issue to themselves. They go back and forth arguing in as politely

sarcastic and nasty as they can. They really duke it out in these special

issues--but in a very polite, diplomatic, and appropriate-for-publication a

manner as they possibly can. I really find it quite hilarious and amusing to

be honest.

Anyway, I just wanted to mention this. It is something to consider when you

find yourself wondering whether there is only one side to an issue. As

Bennie kindly helped me to remember from Research Methods and Stats classes,

there is infrequently, if not rarely, complete agreement among the

scientific community on any particular " fact " . Thanks, Bennie :-)

e.h.

>Bennie wrote:

>

> For each peer reviewed, scientific study, you can find one on the same

> subject that presents a completely different perspective. For example, on

> Spine Universe, when they include an article, they have other authors that

> refute,agree, or ask the author to expand the study for more substantiated

> conclusion.