Improving the quality of research in counseling psychology: Conceptual and methodological issues.

Author(s):  
William T. Hoyt ◽  
Brent Mallinckrodt
2018 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 63-69
Author(s):  
Muhammad Zarlis ◽  
Sherly Astuti ◽  
Muhammad Salamuddin

In education, for educational instruments scientific writing is a very important thing. It requires an information management skill, information management is a library search, which can be done through a computer and guided by the internet. It can also be through the quality of reading used as a reference for scientific writing. In addition, in producing a paper also must know the management of writing, not only required to pay attention to the rules of standard language, but also must be able to convey ideas and ideas well and meet scientific criteria, such as making a quote or reference list used. This paper was written with the aim of improving the quality of research through reading material, making notes and avoiding plagiarism, references using the Harvard system for journals, books, and articles. Management of citing articles either CD or internet, writing, editing, storing references electronically, writing bibliography, and quotations.


2020 ◽  
pp. 34-36
Author(s):  
M. A. Pokhaznikova ◽  
E. A. Andreeva ◽  
O. Yu. Kuznetsova

The article discusses the experience of teaching and conducting spirometry of general practitioners as part of the RESPECT study (RESearch on the PrEvalence and the diagnosis of COPD and its Tobacco-related aetiology). A total of 33 trained in spirometry general practitioners performed a study of 3119 patients. Quality criteria met 84.1% of spirometric studies. The analysis of the most common mistakes made by doctors during the forced expiratory maneuver is included. The most frequent errors were expiration exhalation of less than 6s (54%), non-maximal effort throughout the test and lack of reproducibility (11.3%). Independent predictors of poor spirogram quality were male gender, obstruction (FEV1 /FVC<0.7), and the center where the study was performed. The number of good-quality spirograms ranged from 96.1% (95% CI 83.2–110.4) to 59.8% (95% CI 49.6–71.4) depending on the center. Subsequently, an analysis of the reasons behind the poor quality of research in individual centers was conducted and the identified shortcomings were eliminated. The poor quality of the spirograms was associated either with the errors of the doctors who undertook the study or with the technical malfunctions of the spirometer.


2020 ◽  
Vol 50 (12) ◽  
pp. 1595-1596
Author(s):  
Jonathon P. Fanning ◽  
Jeremy Cohen ◽  
Balasubramanian Venkatesh
Keyword(s):  

2021 ◽  
pp. 003072702110242
Author(s):  
Max Rünzel ◽  
Paolo Sarfatti ◽  
Svetlana Negroustoueva

When evaluating Quality of Science (QoS) in the context of development initiatives, it is essential to define adequate criteria. The objective of this perspective paper is to show how altmetric and bibliometric indicators have been used to support the evaluation of QoS in the 2020 Review of the Phase 2-CGIAR Research Programs (CRPs, 2017–2022), where, for the first time, the Quality of Research for Development (QoR4D) frame of reference has been utilized across the entire CGIAR CRP portfolio. Overall, the CRP review showed a significant output of scientific publications during the period 2017–2020, with 4,872 articles, 220,101 references, and 7.1 citations per article. Additionally, wider interest in scientific publications is demonstrated by good to high altmetrics, with average attention scores ranging from 70.8 to 806.9 with an average of 425.1. The use of selected bibliometrics was shown to be an adequate tool, for use together with other qualitative indicators to evaluate the QoS in the 12 CRPs. The CRP review process clearly demonstrated that standardized, harmonized and consistent data on research output is paramount to provide high-quality quantitative instruments and should be a priority throughout the transition toward One CGIAR. Therefore, we conclude that the QoR4D framework should be augmented by standardized bibliometric indicators embedded in measurement frameworks within the new One CGIAR. Finally, its practical utilization in monitoring and evaluation should be supported with clear guidelines.


2019 ◽  
Vol 54 (1) ◽  
pp. 29-39
Author(s):  
John L. Luckner ◽  
Rashida Banerjee ◽  
Sara Movahedazarhouligh ◽  
Kaitlyn Millen

Current federal legislation emphasizes the use of programs, interventions, strategies, and activities that have been demonstrated through research to be effective. One way to increase the quantity and quality of research that guides practice is to conduct replication research. The purpose of this study was to undertake a systematic review of the replication research focused on self-determination conducted between 2007 and 2017. Using methods used by Cook and colleagues, we identified 80 intervention studies on topics related to self-determination, of which 31 were coded as replications. Intervention study trends, rate of replication studies, percentage of agreements between findings of original and replication studies, amount of author overlap, and types of research designs used are reported along with recommendations for future research.


2020 ◽  
Vol 2020 (4) ◽  
Author(s):  
Mariano Mascarenhas ◽  
Theodoros Kalampokas ◽  
Sesh Kamal Sunkara ◽  
Mohan S Kamath

Abstract STUDY QUESTION Are systematic reviews published within a 3-year period on interventions in ART concordant in their conclusions? SUMMARY ANSWER The majority of the systematic reviews published within a 3-year period in the field of assisted reproduction on the same topic had discordant conclusions. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY Systematic reviews and meta-analyses have now replaced individual randomized controlled trials (RCTs) at the top of the evidence pyramid. There has been a proliferation of systematic reviews and meta-analyses, many of which suffer from methodological issues and provide varying conclusions. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION We assessed nine interventions in women undergoing ART with at least three systematic reviews each, published from January 2015 to December 2017. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS The systematic reviews which included RCTs were considered eligible for inclusion. The primary outcome was extent of concordance between systematic reviews on the same topic. Secondary outcomes included assessment of quality of systematic reviews, differences in included studies in meta-analyses covering the same search period, selective reporting and reporting the quality of evidence. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE Concordant results and conclusions were found in only one topic, with reviews in the remaining eight topics displaying partial discordance. The AMSTAR grading for the majority of the non-Cochrane reviews was critically low whilst it was categorized as high for all of the Cochrane reviews. For three of the nine topics, none of the included systematic reviews assessed the quality of evidence. We were unable to assess selective reporting as most of the reviews did not have a pre-specified published protocol. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION We were limited by the high proportion of reviews lacking a pre-specified protocol, which made it impossible to assess for selective reporting. Furthermore, many reviews did not specify primary and secondary outcomes which made it difficult to assess reporting bias. All the authors of this review were Cochrane review authors which may introduce some assessment bias. The categorization of the review’s conclusions as beneficial, harmful or neutral was subjective, depending on the tone and wording of the conclusion section of the review. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS The majority of the systematic reviews published within a 3-year period on the same topic in the field of assisted reproduction revealed discordant conclusions and suffered from serious methodological issues, hindering the process of informed healthcare decision-making. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S) All the authors are Cochrane authors. M.S.K. is an editorial board member of Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility group. No grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors was obtained.


Author(s):  
Kathryn Rayson ◽  
Louise Waddington ◽  
Dougal Julian Hare

Abstract Background: Cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) is in high demand due to its strong evidence base and cost effectiveness. To ensure CBT is delivered as intended in research, training and practice, fidelity assessment is needed. Fidelity is commonly measured by assessors rating treatment sessions, using CBT competence scales (CCSs). Aims: The current review assessed the quality of the literature examining the measurement properties of CCSs and makes recommendations for future research, training and practice. Method: Medline, PsychINFO, Scopus and Web of Science databases were systematically searched to identify relevant peer-reviewed, English language studies from 1980 onwards. Relevant studies were those that were primarily examining the measurement properties of CCSs used to assess adult 1:1 CBT treatment sessions. The quality of studies was assessed using a novel tool created for this study, following which a narrative synthesis is presented. Results: Ten studies met inclusion criteria, most of which were assessed as being ‘fair’ methodological quality, primarily due to small sample sizes. Construct validity and responsiveness definitions were applied inconsistently in the studies, leading to confusion over what was being measured. Conclusions: Although CCSs are widely used, we need to pay careful attention to the quality of research exploring their measurement properties. Consistent definitions of measurement properties, consensus about adequate sample sizes and improved reporting of individual properties are required to ensure the quality of future research.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document