The 20-item prosopagnosia index (PI20): a self-report instrument for identifying developmental prosopagnosia

Self-report plays a key role in the identification of developmental prosopagnosia (DP), providing complementary evidence to computer-based tests of face recognition ability, aiding interpretation of scores. However, the lack of standardized self-report instruments has contributed to heterogeneous reporting standards for self-report evidence in DP research. The lack of standardization prevents comparison across samples and limits investigation of the relationship between objective tests of face processing and self-report measures. To address these issues, this paper introduces the PI20; a 20-item self-report measure for quantifying prosopagnosic traits. The new instrument successfully distinguishes suspected prosopagnosics from typically developed adults. Strong correlations were also observed between PI20 scores and performance on objective tests of familiar and unfamiliar face recognition ability, confirming that people have the necessary insight into their own face recognition ability required by a self-report instrument. Importantly, PI20 scores did not correlate with recognition of non-face objects, indicating that the instrument measures face recognition, and not a general perceptual impairment. These results suggest that the PI20 can play a valuable role in identifying DP. A freely available self-report instrument will permit more effective description of self-report diagnostic evidence, thereby facilitating greater comparison of prosopagnosic samples, and more reliable classification

Thinking territory historically.

BACKGROUND: While the randomised controlled trial (RCT) is generally regarded as the design of choice for assessing the effects of health care, within the social sciences there is considerable debate about the relative suitability of RCTs and non-randomised studies (NRSs) for evaluating public policy interventions. // OBJECTIVES: To determine whether RCTs lead to the same effect size and variance as NRSs of similar policy interventions; and whether these findings can be explained by other factors associated with the interventions or their evaluation. // METHODS: Analyses of methodological studies, empirical reviews, and individual health and social services studies investigated the relationship between randomisation and effect size of policy interventions by: 1) Comparing controlled trials that are identical in all respects other than the use of randomisation by 'breaking' the randomisation in a trial to create non-randomised trials (re-sampling studies). 2) Comparing randomised and non-randomised arms of controlled trials mounted simultaneously in the field (replication studies). 3) Comparing similar controlled trials drawn from systematic reviews that include both randomised and non-randomised studies (structured narrative reviews and sensitivity analyses within meta-analyses). 4) Investigating associations between randomisation and effect size using a pool of more diverse RCTs and NRSs within broadly similar areas (meta-epidemiology). // RESULTS: Prior methodological reviews and meta-analyses of existing reviews comparing effects from RCTs and nRCTs suggested that effect sizes from RCTs and nRCTs may indeed differ in some circumstances and that these differences may well be associated with factors confounded with design. Re-sampling studies offer no evidence that the absence of randomisation directly influences the effect size of policy interventions in a systematic way. No consistent explanations were found for randomisation being associated with changes in effect sizes of policy interventions in field trials

The Bivariate Normal Copula

We collect well known and less known facts about the bivariate normal distribution and translate them into copula language. In addition, we prove a very general formula for the bivariate normal copula, we compute Gini's gamma, and we provide improved bounds and approximations on the diagonal.Comment: 24 page

Parents' agendas in paediatric clinical trial recruitment are different from researchers' and often remain unvoiced: a qualitative study

Ensuring parents make an informed decision about their child's participation in a clinical trial is a challenge for practitioners as a parent's comprehension of a trial may differ from that intended by the practitioners responsible for recruitment. We explored what issues parents consider important when making a decision about participation in a paediatric clinical trial and their comprehension of these issues to inform future recruitment practice. This qualitative interview and observational study examined recruitment in four placebo-controlled, double-blind randomised clinical trials of medicines for children. Audio-recorded trial recruitment discussions between practitioners and parents (N = 41) were matched with semi-structured interviews with parents (N = 41). When making a decision about trial entry parents considered clinical benefit, child safety, practicalities of participation, research for the common good, access to medication and randomisation. Within these prioritised issues parents had specific misunderstandings, which had the potential to influence their decisions. While parents had many questions and concerns about trial participation which influenced their decision-making, they rarely voiced these during discussions about the trials with practitioners. Those involved in the recruitment of children to clinical trials need to be aware of parents' priorities and the sorts of misunderstandings that can arise with parents. Providing trial information that is tailored to what parents consider important in making a decision about a clinical trial may improve recruitment practice and ultimately benefit evidence-based paediatric medicine. © 2013 Woolfall et al