PubMed Health⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 16464422

[Common and specific methodological features of checklists].

Erik Cobo·Ruth Domínguez·Marta Pulido
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

As medical aims, diagnosis, prognosis, intervention and prevention benefit from scientific method, although they have specific characteristics requiring distinct types of design and statistical analysis. The present article aims to provide definitions of the common and differential features of checklists for the main study designs. Distinctions are made between statistical inference and decision, systematic and random error, confirmation and exploration, prediction and intervention, observation and experimentation, and random allocation and random selection. In addition, the main tools available to researchers to control random and systematic errors are described. How all of these elements are contained in the main types of design is discussed. Importantly, checklists are not a measure of the quality of a study but rather represent minimum requirements that aim to improve the quality of scientific reports.

Explore related subjects

AuthorshipChecklistClinical Trials as TopicEpidemiologic Research DesignGuidelines as TopicPublishingResearch DesignResearch ReportEnglish AbstractJournal ArticleResearch Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Erik Cobo, Ruth Domínguez, Marta Pulido. 2005-12-01. [Common and specific methodological features of checklists].. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0025-7753(05)72204-1

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2007

Reliability of disclosure forms of authors' contributions.

BACKGROUND: The contribution disclosure forms used by medical journals to assess and confirm authorship are surveys of self-reported behaviour that follow the cognitive rules of psychometric instruments. We sought to analyze how autobiographical memory, defined as memory for events and issues related to oneself, affected the reliability of contribution forms for the judging of authorship of research articles. METHODS: We conducted a prospective study, which ultimately included 919 authors of 201 articles submitted to a general medical journal from July 2001 through December 2002. A authorship disclosure form with a checklist of 11 possible contribution choices for all authors was sent first to each article's corresponding author, who was asked to fill it out for all authors. A blank form was then sent to each author individually to disclose his or her own contribution to that article. The main outcome measure was test- retest differences between the corresponding authors' self-declarations, expressed in percent as the gross difference rate (GDR) for each article. RESULTS: More than two-thirds of the corresponding authors (69.7%) differed in at least 1 contribution choice between the 2 disclosure statements made about their own contributions. The reliability of their answers was low to moderate (GDRs > 10%), especially for contributions on the provision of study materials or patients or final approval of the article (GDR 22.9%), guarantor of the study (GDR 20.9%) and drafting of the manuscript (GDR 20.4%). As a proxy for their coauthors' contributions, corresponding authors also differed from them in the perception of noncorresponding authors' contributions, disagreeing in 69.4% of cases. Of the 718 noncorresponding authors, 204 (28.4%) met all the criteria for authorship set out by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors according to the statement given by the corresponding author. When they described their own contributions, this prevalence increased to 40.5%. INTERPRETATION: Psychological factors such as autobiographical memory may confound contribution disclosures as an evaluation tool for authorship on scientific articles and affect responsible authorship and publication practices.

Authorship↗
PubMed2007

Incorporating principles and practical wisdom in research ethics education: a preliminary study.

PURPOSE: Researchers are faced with daily ethical decisions that are subtle and nuanced. However, research ethics training has primarily focused on formal guidelines, general ethical principles, and historically noteworthy cases of research abuse, which may not prepare researchers to respond to everyday dilemmas in research. This study characterized researchers' responses to ethical dilemmas with the goal of aligning research ethics education programs with the demands of practice. METHOD: As a preliminary study, the authors conducted 23 semistructured interviews with senior researchers and research administrators engaged in research with human subjects at the University of Washington and affiliated institutions in 2004. Transcripts were reviewed for research conflicts and strategies used to resolve conflicts identified by participants. RESULTS: Participants referenced two distinct methods of reasoning when faced with conflicts: formal guidelines and practical wisdom. Formal guidelines include established goals, boundaries, and absolutes. Practical wisdom, an Aristotelian concept involving intuitions developed through experience, facilitates responses to everyday dilemmas and new situations. Developing practical wisdom requires researchers to calibrate their own intuitions about right and wrong. Three practices were reported to contribute to this development: self-reflection, sincere skepticism, and open dialogue with colleagues. CONCLUSIONS: These reflections from the senior researchers suggest a need to expand the scope of ethics education programs to include a focus on the development of researchers' pragmatic decision making in addition to the formal rules that govern research. Further research should explore effective educational and institutional strategies that can foster researchers' development in ethical decision making and conduct.

Authorship↗