scholarly journals Testing group differences for confounder selection in nonrandomized studies: flawed practice

2019 ◽  
Vol 191 (43) ◽  
pp. E1189-E1193
Author(s):  
Nadia Sourial ◽  
Isabelle Vedel ◽  
Mélanie Le Berre ◽  
Tibor Schuster
Keyword(s):  
Group Differences ◽  
Confounder Selection ◽  
Testing Group

scholarly journals Testing Group Differences in Brain Functional Connectivity: Using Correlations or Partial Correlations?

2015 ◽  
Vol 5 (4) ◽  
pp. 214-231 ◽  
Author(s):  
Junghi Kim ◽  
Jeffrey R. Wozniak ◽  
Bryon A. Mueller ◽  
Wei Pan
Keyword(s):  
Functional Connectivity ◽  
Group Differences ◽  
Partial Correlations ◽  
Brain Functional Connectivity ◽  
Testing Group

Testing group differences in state transition structure of dynamic functional connectivity models

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Soren F.V. Nielsen ◽  
Diego Vidaurre ◽  
Kristoffer H. Madsen ◽  
Mikkel N. Schmidt ◽  
Morten Morup
Keyword(s):  
Functional Connectivity ◽  
State Transition ◽  
Group Differences ◽  
Transition Structure ◽  
Dynamic Functional Connectivity ◽  
Testing Group

Effects of Modeling Errors on the Acquisition and Retention of Sterile Hand Washing Task

1997 ◽  
Vol 84 (1) ◽  
pp. 19-26 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lisa Riolo
Keyword(s):  
Task Performance ◽  
Learning Effect ◽  
Mixed Model ◽  
Clinical Importance ◽  
Hand Washing ◽  
Group Differences ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Mixed Model Analysis ◽  
Modeling Errors ◽  
Testing Group

The learning effect of including errors in the instruction of a sterile hand washing task was studied. The numbers of errors made during task reproduction on acquisition and retention were analyzed. Subjects were assigned to one of four groups: observed task demonstration, observed task demonstration and five errors, observed task demonstration and the correct presentation of the five errors, and the Control group was told the clinical importance of hand washing. Two trials were videotaped for evaluation during each time of testing. Group differences were tested using a mixed-model analysis of variance. Instruction altered task performance, although no group difference existed. Scores were higher on acquisition tests than retention and on the second trial than the first.

Testing group differences in paired comparisons data.

1991 ◽  
Vol 110 (1) ◽  
pp. 171-182 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dennis P. McGuire ◽  
Mark L. Davison
Keyword(s):  
Group Differences ◽  
Paired Comparisons ◽  
Paired Comparisons Data ◽  
Testing Group

Comparison of Auditory, Language, Memory, and Attention Abilities in Children With and Without Listening Difficulties

2020 ◽  
Vol 29 (4) ◽  
pp. 710-727
Author(s):  
Beula M. Magimairaj ◽  
Naveen K. Nagaraj ◽  
Alexander V. Sergeev ◽  
Natalie J. Benafield
Keyword(s):  
Auditory Processing ◽  
Short Term Memory ◽  
Group Differences ◽  
Long Term Memory ◽  
Short Term ◽  
Significant Group ◽  
Term Memory ◽  
Memory And Attention ◽  
Speed And Accuracy

Objectives School-age children with and without parent-reported listening difficulties (LiD) were compared on auditory processing, language, memory, and attention abilities. The objective was to extend what is known so far in the literature about children with LiD by using multiple measures and selective novel measures across the above areas. Design Twenty-six children who were reported by their parents as having LiD and 26 age-matched typically developing children completed clinical tests of auditory processing and multiple measures of language, attention, and memory. All children had normal-range pure-tone hearing thresholds bilaterally. Group differences were examined. Results In addition to significantly poorer speech-perception-in-noise scores, children with LiD had reduced speed and accuracy of word retrieval from long-term memory, poorer short-term memory, sentence recall, and inferencing ability. Statistically significant group differences were of moderate effect size; however, standard test scores of children with LiD were not clinically poor. No statistically significant group differences were observed in attention, working memory capacity, vocabulary, and nonverbal IQ. Conclusions Mild signal-to-noise ratio loss, as reflected by the group mean of children with LiD, supported the children's functional listening problems. In addition, children's relative weakness in select areas of language performance, short-term memory, and long-term memory lexical retrieval speed and accuracy added to previous research on evidence-based areas that need to be evaluated in children with LiD who almost always have heterogenous profiles. Importantly, the functional difficulties faced by children with LiD in relation to their test results indicated, to some extent, that commonly used assessments may not be adequately capturing the children's listening challenges. Supplemental Material https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.12808607

Exploring the Potential Impact of Sentence-Level Comprehension and Sentence-Level Fluency on Deaf Students' Passage Comprehension

2020 ◽  
Vol 63 (7) ◽  
pp. 2281-2292
Author(s):  
Ying Zhao ◽  
Xinchun Wu ◽  
Hongjun Chen ◽  
Peng Sun ◽  
Ruibo Xie ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Independent Predictor ◽  
Vocabulary Knowledge ◽  
Group Differences ◽  
Regression Analyses ◽  
Deaf Students ◽  
Mediating Role ◽  
Sentence Level ◽  
Mediating Mechanisms ◽  
Potential Impact ◽  
The Relationship

Purpose This exploratory study aimed to investigate the potential impact of sentence-level comprehension and sentence-level fluency on passage comprehension of deaf students in elementary school. Method A total of 159 deaf students, 65 students ( M age = 13.46 years) in Grades 3 and 4 and 94 students ( M age = 14.95 years) in Grades 5 and 6, were assessed for nonverbal intelligence, vocabulary knowledge, sentence-level comprehension, sentence-level fluency, and passage comprehension. Group differences were examined using t tests, whereas the predictive and mediating mechanisms were examined using regression modeling. Results The regression analyses showed that the effect of sentence-level comprehension on passage comprehension was not significant, whereas sentence-level fluency was an independent predictor in Grades 3–4. Sentence-level comprehension and fluency contributed significant variance to passage comprehension in Grades 5–6. Sentence-level fluency fully mediated the influence of sentence-level comprehension on passage comprehension in Grades 3–4, playing a partial mediating role in Grades 5–6. Conclusions The relative contributions of sentence-level comprehension and fluency to deaf students' passage comprehension varied, and sentence-level fluency mediated the relationship between sentence-level comprehension and passage comprehension.

Phonomotor Versus Semantic Feature Analysis Treatment for Anomia in 58 Persons With Aphasia: A Randomized Controlled Trial

2019 ◽  
Vol 62 (12) ◽  
pp. 4464-4482 ◽  
Author(s):  
Diane L. Kendall ◽  
Megan Oelke Moldestad ◽  
Wesley Allen ◽  
Janaki Torrence ◽  
Stephen E. Nadeau
Keyword(s):  
Randomized Controlled Trial ◽  
Response Latency ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Semantic Knowledge ◽  
Semantic Feature ◽  
Feature Analysis ◽  
Group Differences ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Confrontation Naming ◽  
Semantic Feature Analysis

Purpose The ultimate goal of anomia treatment should be to achieve gains in exemplars trained in the therapy session, as well as generalization to untrained exemplars and contexts. The purpose of this study was to test the efficacy of phonomotor treatment, a treatment focusing on enhancement of phonological sequence knowledge, against semantic feature analysis (SFA), a lexical-semantic therapy that focuses on enhancement of semantic knowledge and is well known and commonly used to treat anomia in aphasia. Method In a between-groups randomized controlled trial, 58 persons with aphasia characterized by anomia and phonological dysfunction were randomized to receive 56–60 hr of intensively delivered treatment over 6 weeks with testing pretreatment, posttreatment, and 3 months posttreatment termination. Results There was no significant between-groups difference on the primary outcome measure (untrained nouns phonologically and semantically unrelated to each treatment) at 3 months posttreatment. Significant within-group immediately posttreatment acquisition effects for confrontation naming and response latency were observed for both groups. Treatment-specific generalization effects for confrontation naming were observed for both groups immediately and 3 months posttreatment; a significant decrease in response latency was observed at both time points for the SFA group only. Finally, significant within-group differences on the Comprehensive Aphasia Test–Disability Questionnaire ( Swinburn, Porter, & Howard, 2004 ) were observed both immediately and 3 months posttreatment for the SFA group, and significant within-group differences on the Functional Outcome Questionnaire ( Glueckauf et al., 2003 ) were found for both treatment groups 3 months posttreatment. Discussion Our results are consistent with those of prior studies that have shown that SFA treatment and phonomotor treatment generalize to untrained words that share features (semantic or phonological sequence, respectively) with the training set. However, they show that there is no significant generalization to untrained words that do not share semantic features or phonological sequence features.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document