Hermeneutic single case efficacy design: A systematic review of published research and current standards

open4siThis article systematically reviews the methodological characteristics of Hermeneutic Single Case Efficacy Design (HSCED) studies published in peer-reviewed journals. HSCED provides researchers with a flexible and viable alternative to both between-groups and within-subject experimental designs. This article includes a description of the evolution of the methodology distinctive to HSCED; a discussion of results of HSCED studies considered within a framework of contemporary standards and guidelines for systematic case study research; a presentation of recommendations for key characteristics (e.g., diagnosis, hermeneutic analysis, adjudication procedure). Overall, the aim is provide researchers and reviewers with a resource for conducting and evaluating HSCED research. The results of a systematic review of 13 studies suggests that published HSCED research meets contemporary criteria for systematic case study research. Hermeneutic analysis and adjudication emerged as areas of HSCED practice characterized by a diversity of procedures. Although consensus exists along key dimensions of HSCED, there remains a need for further evaluation of adjudication procedures and reporting standards.openBenelli, Enrico; De Carlo, Alessandro; Biffi, Diana; Mcleod, JohnBenelli, Enrico; De Carlo, Alessandro; Biffi, Diana; Mcleod, Joh

Consensus Development at NIH: What Went Wrong

A close observer identifies the Science Court concept as inspiring consensus development conferences at the National Institutes of Health and describes the extent to which they have followed the model. Professor Jacoby also argues that, if the model were more closely followed, conference objectives would be better realized

Better reporting of interventions : template for intervention description and replication (TIDieR) checklist and guide

Peer reviewedPublisher PD

E-Journals and the Big Deal: A Review of the Literature

Faced with shrinking budgets and increased subscription prices, many academic libraries are seeking ways to reduce the cost of e-journal access. A common target for cuts is the “Big Deal,” or large bundled subscription model, a term coined by Kenneth Frazier in a 2001 paper criticizing the effects of the Big Deal on the academic community. The purpose of this literature review is to examine issues related to reducing e-journal costs, including criteria for subscription retention or cancellation, decision-making strategies, impacts of cancellations, and other options for e-journal content provision. Commonly used criteria for decision-making include usage statistics, overlap analysis, and input from subject specialists. The most commonly used strategy for guiding the process and aggregating data is the rubric or decision grid. While the e-journal landscape supports several access models, such as Pay-Per-View, cloud access, and interlibrary loan, the Big Deal continues to dominate. Trends over the past several years point to dwindling support for the Big Deal however, due largely to significant annual rate increases and loss of content control

Merton and the Hot Tub: Scientific Conventions and Expert Evidence in Australian Civil Procedure

Recently in Australia, common-law judges began to modify the way expert evidence is prepared and presented. Judges from a range of civil jurisdictions have conscientiously sought to reduce expert partisanship and the extent of expert disagreement in an attempt to enhance procedural efficiency and improve access to justice. One of these reforms, concurrent evidence, enables expert witnesses to participate in a joint session with considerable testimonial latitude. This represents a shift away from an adversarial approach and a conscientious attempt to foster scientific values and norms. Here, Edmond describes how changes to Australian civil procedure, motivated by judicial concerns about the prevalence of partisanship among expert witnesses, may have been enfeebled because they were based upon enduring scientific conventions such as the ethos of science

Merton and the Hot Tub: Scientific Conventions and Expert Evidence in Australian Civil Procedure

Recently in Australia, common-law judges began to modify the way expert evidence is prepared and presented. Judges from a range of civil jurisdictions have conscientiously sought to reduce expert partisanship and the extent of expert disagreement in an attempt to enhance procedural efficiency and improve access to justice. One of these reforms, concurrent evidence, enables expert witnesses to participate in a joint session with considerable testimonial latitude. This represents a shift away from an adversarial approach and a conscientious attempt to foster scientific values and norms. Here, Edmond describes how changes to Australian civil procedure, motivated by judicial concerns about the prevalence of partisanship among expert witnesses, may have been enfeebled because they were based upon enduring scientific conventions such as the ethos of science

The Faculty Notebook, March 1998

The Faculty Notebook is published periodically by the Office of the Provost at Gettysburg College to bring to the attention of the campus community accomplishments and activities of academic interest. Faculty are encouraged to submit materials for consideration for publication to the Associate Provost for Faculty Development. Copies of this publication are available at the Office of the Provost

Enhancing health care non-technical skills: the TINSELS programme

Background and Context: Training in ‘non-technical skills’, social (communication and team work) and cognitive (analytical and personal behaviour) skills, in healthcare have been of great interest over the last decade. Whilst the majority of publications focus on ‘whether’ such education can be successful, they overlook the question of ‘how’ they enhance skills. We designed and piloted an original, theoretically robust and replicable teaching package that addresses non-technical skills in the context of medicines safety through simulation-based inter professional learning: the TINSELS (Training In Non-technical Skills to Enhance Levels of Medicines Safety) Programme. Innovation: A modified Delphi process was completed to identify learning outcomes, and recruitment of multi-professional teams was through local publicity. The faculty developed a three-session simulation based intervention: session one was a simulated ward encounter with multiple medicine related activities; session two was an extended debrief and facilitated discussion; and session three a ‘chamber of horrors’ where inter professional teams identified potential sources of error. Each session was completed in the simulation suite with 6 – 9 participants, lasted approximately 90m minutes, and took place over 2 weeks. Full details of the course will be presented to facilitate dissemination. Implications: Likert scale feedback was collected after the course (1 strongly disagree-5 strongly agree). Mean scores were all greater than 4, with qualitative feedback noting the fidelity of the authentic inter professional learner groups. A previously validated safety attitudes questionnaire found changes in attitudes towards handover of care and perceptions of safety levels in the workplace post intervention. An original, simulation based, multi-professional training programme has been developed with learning and assessment materials available for widespread replication

Reprint of “The Single-Case Reporting Guideline In BEhavioural interventions (SCRIBE) 2016: explanation and elaboration”

There is substantial evidence that research studies reported in the scientific literature do not provide adequate information so that readers know exactly what was done and what was found. This problem has been addressed by the development of reporting guidelines which tell authors what should be reported and how it should be described. Many reporting guidelines are now available for different types of research designs. There is no such guideline for one type of research design commonly used in the behavioral sciences, the single-case experimental design (SCED). The present study addressed this gap. This report describes the Single-Case Reporting guideline In BEhavioural interventions (SCRIBE) 2016, which is a set of 26 items that authors need to address when writing about SCED research for publication in a scientific journal. Each item is described, a rationale for its inclusion is provided, and examples of adequate reporting taken from the literature are quoted. It is recommended that the SCRIBE 2016 is used by authors preparing manuscripts describing SCED research for publication, as well as journal reviewers and editors who are evaluating such manuscripts.Published versio