View Full Version : Research Discussion (moved from Parenting)
09-27-03, 08:38 PM
I hope this is an area where I can help out some.I'm also curious as to how I can be of the most help.I've been at my present position since Jan of 84.My practice is children 6-19 with a couple of 4 yr old's thrown in.I'd say that my caseload is 80+% ADHD kids.In the last 15 yrs or so I've begun to re-treat mine after being dx'd in 1972.Since then I've worked hard on making ADHD my primary area of expertise.I have many many hours of CEU's invested from books to workshops and I believe that I'm always learning.I'm sure I'll learn lots in here as well.
As some of you know, I spent a week in Wisconsin in Aug at the Medical College of Wisconsin's 17th Annual Door County Summer Institute.I was priviledged to spend the week with Russell Barkley.He's the most respected researcher/author/scientist in my field of clinical psychology.He is certainly my personal favorite and I hope you all get a chance to read some of his work.He had a lot to say about diagnosis and treatment there; some of which changes the way I do things now.
In terms of diagnosis, what Barkley had to say was significant.Keep in mind also that he is a "pure" scientist, which means everything he says is supported by double blind longitudinal, valid & reliable research.He follows the data plain and simple.There is no one certain way to test for this disorder either.He said that "checklists trump tests", which is very important.The best two checklists are the Conners ADHD checklist, which we've used for years and the ADHD-IV, which I've never seen, The reason for this in both cases is that they're normed on BOTH boys and girls.That's critical.Many checklists aren't, so pay attention to that.This is a very complicated subject so I think what I'll do is make another post to cover the DSM-IV criteria and what Barkley had to say about that(since he was on that committee), as well as how I use it myself.Sorry for the long post. Take care.
09-27-03, 09:11 PM
I read his book as alluded to above and have many technical comments about it.
I am wondering if you might entertain hearing me out on a couple. It is my contention that a little more rigor and formalism would benefit the analysis and interpretations found in that book.
As an indication of the nature of my perspective, let me say that paradox relies on error. The errors are usually of the form of an error in characterization, in mathematics, the "set up" of the problem. So paradox indicates, very commonly, either two different things called by the same name and considered the same, or one thing considered to be more than one thing in error. An increase in formalism can reveal such things to immediate and practical benefit.
Unfortunately, for such a discussion, this forum is not the best venue. This forum is not for "the possibly disturbing challenge of the best authors of our time," but to give support and understanding to those experiencing the problems that ADHD produces.
Thus my request necessitates that we communicate either through PM or e-mail or other modality.
I thank you for your consideration in advance.
09-27-03, 10:11 PM
Thanks for your comments.I would respectfully disagree and say that a forum like this is the perfect place to provide insights on the practice of clinical/child psychology for ADHD and the research that drives it.I've been chatting and posting for years and forums like this are invaluable.I hope to get to know everyone more and have a chance to help out if I can.Thanks again.
09-27-03, 11:46 PM
Originally posted by mctavish23
dark blue I would respectfully disagree and say that a forum like this is the perfect place to provide insights on the practice of clinical/child psychology for ADHD and the research that drives it.
Let us put that to the test:
In an experiment children are brought into a room and presented with a scenario:
They can have a cookie that sits before them on a table when the researcher leaves the room, or, they can wait until the researcher comes back at which point they simply get two cookies to eat at that time.
In a longitudinal study, children who took the one cookie statistically had poorer life outcomes as a group than the larger group that waited, by whatever method or effort, and got two cookies.
What elements were uncontroled that could invalidate the conclusions?
What elements were over controled that could invalidate the conclusions?
What constant social biases could control the results without significant implications existing, per se, for any atrbitrarily selected individual in the "poorer outcomes group.?"
What could be anticipated as the complication of either group being significantly heterogenious with respect to actual (though perhaps unidentified) controling "dependent" variables?
What could be anticipated as the complication of each group separately and solely being significantly heterogenious with respect to actual (though perhaps unidentified) controling "dependent" variables?
Fundamentally, why are the answers to these questions significant rather than trivial or unimportant?
What design changes could be made in the study to accomodate the previously uncontrolled/overcontrolled variables of the current example study?
How might existing material be used to help inform a desgnation of suspected dependent vs. independent features involved in this experiment?
In any diverse population in a varying and dynamic environment, game theory imposes some ramifications on the scenario vis a vie the possible outcomes dependent on the possible environments. How do these structures constrain the experiment? What assumptions need be born out for the results to hold? What assumptions, if different, would reverse the findings?
If reversed, which scenarios would still be qualified discriminators useful to ADHD research and which would be trivial and useless solutions to the multidimensional problem space? How could they be distinguished? Why is it important to try? What approximations could be established as not threatening the integrity of the results?
Shall we start?
First off though I want to know what kind of cookies we are talking about
Chocolate chip or chocolate chunks
Oatmeal or peanut butter
do we get milk with these cookies
I agree with your point there wheel
Im not about to become some guini pig for some person to write roports and books about so they can be sold for him to make a comfortable living selling his supposed invaluble data to uther poor unsuspecting ADDers who are trying to figure it all out
I come here to be amounst people of my own kind and to share and learn from real ADDers with real life situations.
Put us in a perfect ADD world and watch the linear thinkers start to squirm let me find my post
just a min
09-28-03, 12:43 AM
Your post makes no sense to me and has nothing to do with my point.I'm here to try and clarify things not get sucked into a meaningless debate .Longitudinal means the research has stood the test of time.Barkley is considered among the world's best and has the longest running longitudinal study in the world:The Milwaukee Study started in 1977 and still going strong.Validity and reliability are the gold standards of all research( does it measure what it says it does and can others not associated with it get the exact same results over time).This is what ultimately determines the techniques used by clinicians:as to be ethical also means to use what works( practice efficacy) and discard what doesn't.Thanks for your interest.
could you clairify as to whos post makes no sence
mine or wheels
09-28-03, 01:06 AM
I'm an adult ADHD diagnosed in 1972; back when it was called MBD(Minimal Brain Dysfunction or Damage).I was 22 at the time,which meant I went K thru college without knowing what was wrong.I also have a learning disability in Math and had a tutor throughout grade school.I've put up with harrassment and hassle from people who don't think ADHD is real all my life, so I've paid my dues to be here too.When I first went on meds I went from an undergrad gpa of 2.53 to a grad school gpa of 3.66.The meds helped me achieve my true potential but the hard work was all me.I've had to fight for everything I've ever accomplished and I'm living proof that ADHD kids can be successful.
I work in a rural, nonprofit agency with kids who are mostly on welfare.I also donate my time to two free kids clinics here in Minnesota: Juvenile Diabetes thru the International Diabetes Center in the Twin Cities area and a Developmental Learning Clinic , which includes Fetal Alcohol Syndrome & Effect.Those clinics require I give up 16 days a year from my practice and Im glad to do it.
I'm not here to threaten anyone or cause a problem.The fact that I want to try and post info is not about ego but a desire to help.If this forum is about and for ADHD's, then I belong here too.Have a cookie and maybe we can get to know one another.Thanks for the reply.
09-28-03, 01:09 AM
I have to suspect that you are not accustomed to being listened to so carefully.
b. Concerned with the development of persons or groups over time: a longitudinal study of twins.
This is about a relatively long (time measure) study, and in fact, has nothing to do with research that "has stood the test of time" and is by implication valid.
That would be related to the term "replicated:"
1. To duplicate, copy, reproduce, or repeat.
Validity and reliability are often inferred, whether correctly or not, from the ability of OTHERS to replicate the results of a researcher. A researcher's own self referential consistency is not generally held as a reliable basis of judgement nor a tenant of promotion of reliability or validity like replication is.
Thanks for your interest.
You did mention to me that this was about "diagnosis" PM, but may i point out that your post expanded that definiton of your interests here to include:
"provide insights on the practice of clinical/child psychology for ADHD and the research that drives it"
which seems to open the door to discuss research as well as diagnosis.
Perhaps you would be kind enough to point out my error to me in my interpretation of your statement.
Very sincerely, David
09-28-03, 01:23 AM
The definitons I'm referring to are the one's used specifically in Experimental Psychology.In fact, Industrial/Organizational Psychology has different definitons for both validity and reliability.I'm talking Experimental Psych, using terms specific to the subject of research and not from a dictionary.
I do appreciate your interest tho and am glad you are reading things closely.