Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
28 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
EBP |
The integration of best research evidence with clinical expertise and patient values. A. Clinician generated data/evidence/expert opinion B. External scientific evidence C. Client/ patient/caregiver values Th goal is to provide optimal clinical service to that client/patient on an individual basis |
|
|
Preconditions to EBP^3 |
1. Uncertainty about whether a clinical action is optimal for client 2. Professional integrity 3. Application of four principles underpinning clinical ethical reasoning: Beneficence, non-maleficence, autonomy and justice
|
|
|
PICO |
Patient or problem Intervention being questioned what are you Comparing or contrasting the intervention to Outcome wanted |
|
|
What is a CAT? |
An exceptional way for SLPs to use evidence-based practice. Brief summary of search and critically appraised research to a focused clinical question. A preferred categorization format for quick studies in EBP. Describes the best research evidence to date, evaluates the findings and summarizes the results into a couple pages. |
|
|
CAT purpose |
to translate a clinical problem into an answerable question |
|
|
CAT steps |
Formulate clinical questions Search for evidence (use key words), appraise, organize, and summarize conclusions Integrate with clinical expertise Practice EBP |
|
|
Questions to ask when you have completed the CAT |
1. Was a clinically important topic chosen 2. Was an answerable question asked 3. Was an appropriate and effective search strategy used and presented 4. Was the most appropriate papers analyzed 5. Was the original question answered 6. Did the conclusions you make about clinical applicability 7. Was the summary presented in a clear and effective manner 8. Will this CAT change or consolidate you clinical behavior towards this topic
|
|
|
CAT format |
Title- pico Reviewers Search- where research came from Date- when it was completed and when it should be done again Citations Summary and Appriasal of studies Applicability Conclusion |
|
|
Appraisal Point |
1. Was there a plausible rationale for the study? 2. Was the evidence from an experimental study? 3. Was there a control group or condition? 4. Was randomization used to create the contrasting conditions? 5. Were methods and participants specified prospectively (ahead of time)? 6. Were patients representative and/or recognizable at the beginning and the end? 7. Was treatment described clearly and implemented as intended? 8. Was the measure valid and reliable in principle and as employed? 9. Was the outcome (at minimum) evaluated with blinding? 10. What nuisance variable/s could have seriously distorted the finding? 11. Was the finding statistically significant? 12. If the finding was not statistically significant, was statistical power adequate? 13. Was the finding important, effects size, social validity, or maintenance? 14. Was the finding precise? 15. Was there a substantial cost-benefit advantage? |
|
|
Qualitative Research |
Narrative (subject's own words, summarize behaviors) Descriptive Methods (interviews, observation notes, and surveys) |
|
|
Quantitative Research |
Numerical data collected and analyzed Explores relationships between variables (independent, dependent) Experimental or quasi-experimental |
|
|
Experimental Designs |
Characterized by complete random assignment of group or subjects Groups are independent Usually employs strong control |
|
|
Quasi-Experimental Design |
Groups or subjects not randomly assigned May not have comparison group Typical of clinical research Less "subject-intensive" |
|
|
Between Subjects |
Dependent measures taken one time Data are independent |
|
|
Within Subjects |
A "repeated measures" design Dependent measures taken multiple times (same measurements over time on same subjects) Data are dependent |
|
|
Mixed |
Between and within |
|
|
AB design |
A= baseline condition B= intervention phase ABA they stop doing therapy and see if they return to baseline |
|
|
Internal Validity |
Accuracy of research, can you believe the results?, inferences regarding cause effect or causal relationships |
|
|
External Validity |
are they generalizable outside of the stud; truth of conclusions that involve generalizations or the agree to which the conclusion would hold true for other person in other places at other time Sample Model- identify population you want to generalize to then draw a fair sample and the conduct research Proximal Similarity Model- an appropriate relabeling of external validity |
|
|
Null Hypothesis |
results of pure chance, what you are testing against, hypothesis no difference, results don't differ from what would happen by chance |
|
|
Alternative Hypothesis |
real effect combines with components of chance variation, results differ by more than just chance occurrence |
|
|
Descriptive Statistics |
Describe the data; central tendency, variability, mean , median, mode, SD or variance |
|
|
Inferential Statistics |
Testing hypothesis and models, were the results due to chance |
|
|
Levels of Measurement |
Interval/ratio- distance between number is meaningful, know different between numbers on a scale; mean Ordinal- Attributes can be ordered, know what the smaller vs. largest but don't know the different between points; median Nominal- attributes are only named; can categorize, or classify; don't know if their is a difference in their order; mode |
|
|
Parametric |
have interval level data, know difference between points, normally distributed, independence between measures |
|
|
Non-Parametric |
May not have normal distribution, ordinal or nominal data, might not have independence of measures |
|
|
Association |
This is associated with this ex/ running fast and winning races interval or ordinal level data |
|
|
Difference |
want to know difference, classify and count them nominal level data |
