tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7082878015421475244.post9173233083682058997..comments2024-01-19T13:58:02.291-08:00Comments on LawsDystopiaBlog: Significantly nonsignificantProfessor Keith R Lawshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11760248140027990471noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7082878015421475244.post-16259955861634415342012-12-18T08:47:47.145-08:002012-12-18T08:47:47.145-08:00We may need a codebreaker for that one....What was...We may need a codebreaker for that one....What was your conclusion? Are they the CBT equivalents of the Royal family?<br /><br /><br />Professor Keith R Lawshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11760248140027990471noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7082878015421475244.post-68857328239552817902012-12-18T08:28:22.434-08:002012-12-18T08:28:22.434-08:00I heard from a source that these authors are alien...I heard from a source that these authors are alien lizards working for world domination.<br /><br />Adjustment was made for the fact that the source was David Icke.Neuroskeptichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06647064768789308157noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7082878015421475244.post-30734926639933173152012-12-12T09:40:36.763-08:002012-12-12T09:40:36.763-08:00No JT - they dont mention the 16 nonsignificant ad...No JT - they dont mention the 16 nonsignificant adjusted score analyses at all in the discussion or the abstract<br />The implications they draw are astounding in content<br />Unless some error has been made in the version that is posted on the 'Schizophrenia Research' website, then I really have to wonder what the reviewers/action editor were thinking when they let this one through as it is!Professor Keith R Lawshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11760248140027990471noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7082878015421475244.post-7780329790353240132012-12-12T07:37:12.549-08:002012-12-12T07:37:12.549-08:00I'm also surprised that there is zero mention ...I'm also surprised that there is zero mention of the adjusted results in the paper, I checked it over multiple times just to make sure. Would love to know if I was missing something too. Also, this would be the near the best possible delivery conditions of this therapy since the authors created this particular version, so not showing an actual effect definitely raises serious obstacles to the implications they present.JThttp://twitter.com/jdottannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7082878015421475244.post-15567634872901135862012-12-11T09:38:19.817-08:002012-12-11T09:38:19.817-08:00Errors of ommission and 'selight of hand' ...Errors of ommission and 'selight of hand' are amongst the most pernicious & possibly widespread of problems in psychology research.<br />The problem here is that the authors make massive inferences - to quote:<br /><br />"1. The current study can inform a fully-powered PHASE III trial."<br /><br />-Perhaps.... that such a trial is not justified on basis of this study?<br /><br />"2. An effective treatment based on cultural explanations will ensure better quality of care for this group of patients due to better<br />engagement and outcomes. Offering CaCBTp offers choice and an evidence based alternative or adjunct to psychotropic medication<br />(DoH:DRE, 2003; Inside Outside: Sashidharan, 2003)."<br /><br />-CBT not shown to be an effective treatment in this group; and certainly no evidence-base here that it is an alternative (or adjunct) to psychotropic medication<br /><br />"3. Implications for policy makers include the training of staff and dissemination of this therapy within resource constraints. Provision of<br />CBT is a cost effective way of managing patients with psychosis in the community as the relapse rate is found to be low (Turkington et al., 2006a,b)."<br /><br />-massive extrapolations not based on anything here<br /><br />"4. There are implications for further development of clinical or public health practice due to the role of this treatment in early intervention,<br />relapse prevention and effective community care."<br /><br />- more massive extrapolation not based on this evidenceProfessor Keith R Lawshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11760248140027990471noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7082878015421475244.post-54880216693316089072012-12-11T08:45:07.156-08:002012-12-11T08:45:07.156-08:00This comment has been removed by the author.Professor Keith R Lawshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11760248140027990471noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7082878015421475244.post-14550619368119685182012-12-11T08:32:23.668-08:002012-12-11T08:32:23.668-08:00So the Abstract is factually correct ... but like ...So the Abstract is factually correct ... but like all effective advertising copy they simply delete the second half of the final sentence, allowing the reader to infer something that isn't actually stated. The full version of the final sentence should presumably be something like, "Adjustment was made for age, gender and antipsychotic medication which rendered all significant effects non-significant"Nicknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7082878015421475244.post-89630191363759098452012-12-11T06:56:53.677-08:002012-12-11T06:56:53.677-08:00wish you would post this stuff on Facebook too. Tx...wish you would post this stuff on Facebook too. Tx for all you doMental Illness Policy Orghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01271590567394649679noreply@blogger.com