Qualitative Reviews and Meta-Analysis: A Guide for Psychology Research, Diapositivas de Diseños y Grupos

¡Descarga Qualitative Reviews and Meta-Analysis: A Guide for Psychology Research y más Diapositivas en PDF de Diseños y Grupos solo en Docsity! Theoretical Research: Qualitative Reviews & Meta-analysis Unit 2 1 Trabajo Fin de Grado (=Thesis) TFG Theoretical Qualitative Review Systematic Reviews & Meta-Analysis Empirical Replication !!!!Real Research Reviews Empirical Research Planning 5 For now we can say that: This has been the traditional way of summarizing active research fields and points out to trends, shortcomings, etc. Qualitative Reviews We will leave the practical details of this process for the time in which you start the paper (November), The process is not openly documented, although…..it is submitted to the PEER REVIEW SYSTEM, as usual in science It is the researcher who establish the major points and conclusions on the basis of its own subjective-objective judgment. 6 Overall Steps towards a qualitative review (+ o -) Too General: Depression, Alzheimer Too specific: working memory in “Euskera” Type of papers, Scope: time, etc Publish reviews, etc. Field of Review!! Inclusion-Exclusion Criteria Search terms Search the Appropiate Database: Psycinfo, Medline,…..: AND, OR, NOT, … SELECT AND accept/reject ON THE BASIS OF TITLE AND/OR ABSTRACT Search Examples Example: PsycInfo Búsqueda avanzada Líneadecomandos Tesauro Códigos decampo Consejos de búsqueda na =-; Cualquier campo excepto texto completo — NOFT Al Autor — AU — Lugar — LO y mo rl esumen—AS ORT ao : | en. [Cualquercampo Título de publicación — PUB NOT f SR d E==>>)| Título del documento — TI Todas las materias e indexaciones — SU PAIN) A Encabezamiento de materia — MAINSUBJECT Fechade publicación: fTodaslasiechas $ == Identificador (palabra clave) — IF Materia principal — MJSUB E ciones del autor — AF ! Autor corporativo — CA Lugar Consultar Lugares Beca — Gl Clasificación: Consultar Clasificacion Clasificación — CL pS dida a Conferencia — CF AA pá Dirección de correo electrónico — EA — - Editorial — PB ena 2 ¡Pates e] [Permanent Fecha de última revisión — LR Selecionar todo Seleccionar todo Seleccionar todo Formato cubierto — FC Abstract Collection Clinical Trial Imágenes de ma 1 Índice —TOC Authored Book Entrevista Apéndices 1D de PubMed — PID ibliography Estudio cualitativo Audio á a 0 Ao o cti Conjuntos de da Identificador de objetos digitales — DO! Chapter Estudio de campo DvD/CO 1 ISSN — ISSN Clarificarian Fatudia de naco elínico Tahlas y finuras Notas — NT Número — ISS Koma > A eS Audiencia: Número de tesis doctoral — DISPUB E pas a E Otro título de la revista — OJ Seleccionar todo cionar todo Seleccionar todo Alricaans. Childnood (birtr12 Yrs) Público general dal as o ar Albanés Neonatal (birth Mo) Juvenil o ici Alemán Infancy (223 Mo) Psicología: prote Referencia — REF Árabe Preschoo! Age (24 Yrs) ] Título de serie — SR Búlgaro School Age (6-12 Yrs) Trabajo revisado — RV Catalán Adolescencia (19:17 Yee! Población: A Seleccionar todo 10 Overall Steps tow ards a qualitative review (+ o -) 11 Final Step towards a qualitative review Full Text Articles: Qualitative Synthesis and Categorization Finally: 12 More Examples: Is the annual physical (medical) exam that many people take every year effective in illness. -Does exercise improve depression? -Do Parkinson disease patients present memory deficits? Qualitative Reviews: Example Example: Blaney, Paul H (1986). Affect and memory: A review . Psychological Bulletin, 99(2), 229-246 Qualitative Reviews . has a specific node or unit in memory that collects together many other aspects of the emotion that are connected to it by as- sociative pointers. . . . Each emotion unit is also linked with prop- ositions describing events from one's life during which that emotion Ganellen, whom 1 thank for his stimulating comments and careful review of an earlier draft. I also thank Lane Baggett and several anonymous reviewers for their comments on prior drafts. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Paul H. Blaney, Department of Psychology, University of Miami, Box 248185, Coral Gables, Florida 33124. 230 State-Dependent Recall Although the literature demonstrating state dependence in- volving drug-induced states is considerable—even cigarette emalino anmaare ta indura a erata dictinctiva anonoh ta influence though this may be so, a distinction can be made between the mnemonic effects of mood per se and the mnemonic effects of cognitive structures associated with mood (self-image; self-sche- mata, preoccupation with failure, etc.). As is evident in the review priming effects, though some (e.g., Kavanagh 4 Bower, 1985) may doubt ¡ts importance, is of recurrent relevance in the in- In this review, 1 focus on the substantial literature that has emerged in the past decade. Note, however, that some recent findings are not terribly different from those reported in studies as eady as 1917. (See Bousfield's, 1950, review for a summary of early research.) PAUL H. BLANEY gated) recalling the list learned in the concordant mood than in the discordant mood. When subjects were asked to reinstigate an already-experienced mood, they were specifically told to imagine a different happy or sad scene from the one they had previously used: to the extent that subiects complied with this Qualitative Reviews 234 PAUL H. BLANEY Table 1 Induction Studies Relevant to Mood-Congruent Memory Study Induction and design Dependent variable(s) Results Bower, Gilligan, € Monteiro Hypnosis; EL vs. DEP; various Recall of positive vs. negative Congruence with exposure (1981, Studies 1-5) designs elements in narrative story mood, not recall mood (Studies 1-5) Estimates of frequency of positive Congruence with recall mood, vs. negative elements (Study 3) not exposure mood Bower $ Mayer (1985) Hypnosis; EL vs. DEP at Recall of positive vs. negative Congruence with exposure exposure crossed with EL vs. words mood, not recall mood DEP at recall Bower, Monteiro, € Gilligan Hypnosis; EL vs. DEP; within- Frequency of positive vs. negative No difference with regard to (1978; Studies 1-3) subject word recall mood at recall Order of positive vs. negative word In 2 of 3 studies, subjects recall recalled congruent prior to words Brown é: Taylor (1985) Velten and memory elicitation; Recall of words diffcring in EL subjects recalled less EL vs. DEP at exposure positivity negative material than DEP crossed with EL vs. DEP at subjects recall D. M. Clark d Teasdale Music; EL vs. DEP; betwcen- Recall of words differing in Among men, no mood- (1985, Study 1) subjects positivity efects; among women, EL subjects recalled more pleasant than unpleasant words; reverse in DEP subjects D. M. Clark, Teasdale, Music; EL vs. DEP, between- Latency of word/nonword No interaction between mood Broadbent, $ Martin (1983) subjects discrimination of positive vs. and word type Subsequent word recall EL subjects recalled more 17 Meta-Analysis Hierarchy of Evidence (From: S. Shenkin: Introduction to Systematic Reviews, presentation ) 20 •A systematic review answers a defined research question by collecting and summarising all empirical evidence that fits pre-specified eligibility criteria and when STATISTICAL METHODS are used to summarise the results then we have a META-ANALYSIS. They should have: – clearly stated objectives with pre-defined eligibility criteria for studies – a systematic search that attempts to identify all studies – explicit, reproducible methodology – assessment of the validity of the findings of the included studies (e.g. risk of bias) – systematic presentation, and synthesis, of the characteristics and findings of the included studies. Meta-Analysis From web site: Systematic Reviews (&Meta….): part of PRISMA (2009) Checklist From: Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, The PRISMA Group (2009). Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement. PLoS Med 6(7) METHODS 22 Meta-Analysis: Inclusion Flow PRISMA 2009 Flow Diagram From: Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, The PRISMA Group (2009). Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement. PLoS Med 6(7) PRISMA 2009 Checklist: -o y Continuation RESULTS Study selection 17 | Give numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review, with reasons for exclusions at each stage, ideally with a flow diagram. Study characteristics 18 | For each study, present characteristics for which data were extracted (e.g., study size, PICOS, follow-up period) and provide the citations. Risk of bias within studies 19 | Present data on risk of bias of each study and, if available, any outcome level assessment (see ¡tem 12). Results of individual studies 20 For all outcomes considered (benefits or harms), present, for each study: (a) simple summary data for each intervention group (b) effect estimates and confidence intervals, ideally with a forest plot. Synthesis of results 21 | Present results of each meta-ana done. includina confidence intervals and measures of consistency. Risk of bias across studies 22 | Present results of any assessment of risk of bias across studies (see Item 15). Additional analysis 23 | Give results of additional analyses, if done (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression [see Item 16)). Results: Confidence Intervals Estimates with 95% Confidence Intervals 9 Line of no effect Kennedy 1997 Locke 1952A < Estimate and confidence interval for each study Lopes 1997 + Reynolds 1998 Seiberth 1994 4 Estimate and confidence for the meta-analysis ' 1 0.2 1.0 5 «———— Scale (effect measure) Risk ratio Favors light reduction *—— ——> Favors control +————— Direction of effect 26 Results: Confidence Intervals on Depression éz Exercise (. -.. Contirued) Std Std. Mean Mean Study or subgroup Exercise Control Diflerence Weight Difierence N Mean(SD) N Mean(SD) INRandom 95% Cl INRandom,95% Cl Orih 1979 3 7 (66) 2 165 (212) 06% -125[-371, 121] Piu 2007 10 81 (52) 20 167 (8.1) — 27% -1.04 [-1.85, -0.23] Reuter 1984 9 5.1 (475) 9 18.56 (7.7) —— 18% -2.00 [ -3.19, -0.82 ] Sehuch 201 1 15 593 (4:46) " 9.45 (356) — 27% 083 [ -1.65, -001 ] Setaro 1985 25 62 (651) 25 6988(396) — 23% -1.44 [ 2.07, -081 ] Shahidi 201 1 20 111 (62) 20 152 (6.1) — 233% 165 [ -129, -0.02 ] Sirms 2009 23 1513(849) 2 2062 (1179 — 34% 053 [ -1.12, 0.07] Singh 1997 17 9304) 15 138 (0) — 26% -1.75 [-259, -092 ] Singh 2005 18 85 (55) 19 144 (6) — 31% -1,00 [ -1.69, -0.31 ] Veale 1992 36 1394(1278) 29 1779(1018) — 28% 033 [-082, 017] Williams 2008 17 837 (578) 2 1175 (8.1) — 29% 0.48 [ -1.23, 027] Total (95% CI) 7 642 » 100.0 % -0.62 [ -0.81, -0.42 ] Heterogeneity: Taw* = 0.19; Chi? = 9135, dí = 34 (P<0.00001); F =63% Test for overall effect: Z = 6.22 (P < 0.00001) Test for subgroup diflerences Not applicable 2 0 2 Fasours exercise Fasours control