脑肿瘤放射治疗儿童神经发育变化的测量:什么是真正的“基线”?”

M. Ris, Maria C. Grosch, J. Fletcher, Paras Metah, L. Kahalley
{"title":"脑肿瘤放射治疗儿童神经发育变化的测量:什么是真正的“基线”?”","authors":"M. Ris, Maria C. Grosch, J. Fletcher, Paras Metah, L. Kahalley","doi":"10.1080/13854046.2016.1216070","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Objective: To review the various ways in which baseline neuropsychological functioning is measured in the extant literature on pediatric brain tumors, describe the pros and cons of each approach, and increase the awareness of researchers as to the implications of each. Method: We reviewed the literature from 1993 to 2013, and classified studies by baseline approach and explicitness of selection of approach. Results: There are multiple approaches to operationalizing baseline levels of ability and to assess change from baseline. Each approach has strengths and weaknesses, and selection may depend on the question under investigation. Approaches to baseline estimation varied widely with a trend over time toward reliance on statistical modeling. Researchers were often insufficiently explicit about the reasons for adopting a particular approach. The common use of standardized scores requires caution as they obscure critical inferential limitations about change and magnitude of change. Some viable approaches were infrequently used, such as actuarial prediction formulas. Multiple simultaneous methods akin to theory testing and formal methods of construct validation could enhance scientific yield since all approaches are fallible. Conclusions: Estimating baseline neuropsychological functioning is very challenging, particularly when it concerns children in the preschool years. Nevertheless, it is a crucial methodological decision with important implications for the interpretation of research findings that needs to be dealt with explicitly.","PeriodicalId":197334,"journal":{"name":"The Clinical neuropsychologist","volume":"31 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"16","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Measurement of neurodevelopmental changes in children treated with radiation for brain tumors: what is a true ‘baseline?’\",\"authors\":\"M. Ris, Maria C. Grosch, J. Fletcher, Paras Metah, L. Kahalley\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/13854046.2016.1216070\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract Objective: To review the various ways in which baseline neuropsychological functioning is measured in the extant literature on pediatric brain tumors, describe the pros and cons of each approach, and increase the awareness of researchers as to the implications of each. Method: We reviewed the literature from 1993 to 2013, and classified studies by baseline approach and explicitness of selection of approach. Results: There are multiple approaches to operationalizing baseline levels of ability and to assess change from baseline. Each approach has strengths and weaknesses, and selection may depend on the question under investigation. Approaches to baseline estimation varied widely with a trend over time toward reliance on statistical modeling. Researchers were often insufficiently explicit about the reasons for adopting a particular approach. The common use of standardized scores requires caution as they obscure critical inferential limitations about change and magnitude of change. Some viable approaches were infrequently used, such as actuarial prediction formulas. Multiple simultaneous methods akin to theory testing and formal methods of construct validation could enhance scientific yield since all approaches are fallible. Conclusions: Estimating baseline neuropsychological functioning is very challenging, particularly when it concerns children in the preschool years. Nevertheless, it is a crucial methodological decision with important implications for the interpretation of research findings that needs to be dealt with explicitly.\",\"PeriodicalId\":197334,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The Clinical neuropsychologist\",\"volume\":\"31 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2017-02-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"16\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The Clinical neuropsychologist\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/13854046.2016.1216070\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Clinical neuropsychologist","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13854046.2016.1216070","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 16

摘要

摘要目的:回顾现有儿童脑肿瘤文献中测量基线神经心理功能的各种方法,描述每种方法的优缺点,并提高研究人员对每种方法的影响的认识。方法:回顾1993 - 2013年的文献,根据基线法和方法选择的明确性对研究进行分类。结果:有多种方法可以操作基线能力水平并评估基线变化。每种方法都有优点和缺点,选择可能取决于所调查的问题。随着时间的推移,基线估计的方法随着依赖统计建模的趋势而变化很大。研究人员往往对采用某种特定方法的原因不够明确。标准化分数的普遍使用需要谨慎,因为它们模糊了关于变化和变化幅度的关键推断限制。一些可行的方法很少使用,例如精算预测公式。多种同时进行的方法,如理论检验和结构验证的形式化方法,可以提高科学产量,因为所有的方法都是可能出错的。结论:评估基线神经心理功能是非常具有挑战性的,特别是当它涉及到学龄前儿童时。然而,这是一个至关重要的方法论决定,对需要明确处理的研究结果的解释具有重要意义。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Measurement of neurodevelopmental changes in children treated with radiation for brain tumors: what is a true ‘baseline?’
Abstract Objective: To review the various ways in which baseline neuropsychological functioning is measured in the extant literature on pediatric brain tumors, describe the pros and cons of each approach, and increase the awareness of researchers as to the implications of each. Method: We reviewed the literature from 1993 to 2013, and classified studies by baseline approach and explicitness of selection of approach. Results: There are multiple approaches to operationalizing baseline levels of ability and to assess change from baseline. Each approach has strengths and weaknesses, and selection may depend on the question under investigation. Approaches to baseline estimation varied widely with a trend over time toward reliance on statistical modeling. Researchers were often insufficiently explicit about the reasons for adopting a particular approach. The common use of standardized scores requires caution as they obscure critical inferential limitations about change and magnitude of change. Some viable approaches were infrequently used, such as actuarial prediction formulas. Multiple simultaneous methods akin to theory testing and formal methods of construct validation could enhance scientific yield since all approaches are fallible. Conclusions: Estimating baseline neuropsychological functioning is very challenging, particularly when it concerns children in the preschool years. Nevertheless, it is a crucial methodological decision with important implications for the interpretation of research findings that needs to be dealt with explicitly.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Gender and Autism Program: A novel clinical service model for gender-diverse/transgender autistic youth and young adults. Neuropsychological functioning of pediatric patients with long COVID. A roadmap for psychometrist training: Moving from condemnation and confusion to cooperation and collaborationA Neuropsychologist’s Guide to Training Psychometrists: Promoting Competence in Psychological Testing. edited by Ghilain, C. S. New York: Routledge. (2021), ­160 pages. ISBN: 036756498X. $140.00 (hbk) Introductory editorial to the special issue: Assessment and diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and related clinical decision making in neuropsychological practice Affirmative neuropsychological practice with transgender and gender diverse individuals and communities.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1