scholarly journals Reporting Discrepancies Between the ClinicalTrials.gov Results Database and Peer-Reviewed Publications

2014 ◽  
Vol 160 (7) ◽  
pp. 477 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel M. Hartung ◽  
Deborah A. Zarin ◽  
Jeanne-Marie Guise ◽  
Marian McDonagh ◽  
Robin Paynter ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Reporting Discrepancies

Interpreting WISC-R Verbal-Performance Discrepancies: A Note for Practitioners

1983 ◽  
Vol 56 (1) ◽  
pp. 96-98 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fred M. Grossman
Keyword(s):  
Normal Population ◽  
Frequency Data ◽  
Standardization Sample ◽  
Reporting Discrepancies ◽  
And Performance ◽  
Verbal Performance

Information relating to the significance of WISC-R Verbal-Performance IQ discrepancies and the frequencies of such differences in the standardization sample have been available to practitioners for several years. With regard to the magnitude of significant discrepancies -within the normal population, such data are often misunderstood and misinterpreted by clinicians. Specifically, the nondirectional aspect of significant frequencies reported in the literature is often misconstrued and interpreted incorrectly. An example of a common misinterpretation is presented as well as suggestions for remedying inaccuracies in reporting discrepancies between Verbal and Performance IQs and frequency data.

scholarly journals Data extraction methods: an analysis of internal reporting discrepancies in single manuscripts and practical advice

2020 ◽  
Vol 117 ◽  
pp. 158-164 ◽  
Author(s):  
Livia Puljak ◽  
Nicoletta Riva ◽  
Elena Parmelli ◽  
Marien González-Lorenzo ◽  
Lorenzo Moja ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Data Extraction ◽  
Extraction Methods ◽  
Practical Advice ◽  
Reporting Discrepancies

scholarly journals Outcome reporting discrepancies between trial entries and published final reports of orthodontic randomized controlled trials

2018 ◽  
Vol 41 (3) ◽  
pp. 225-230 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marianna Koufatzidou ◽  
Despina Koletsi ◽  
Padhraig S Fleming ◽  
Argy Polychronopoulou ◽  
Nikolaos Pandis
Keyword(s):  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Outcome Reporting ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Reporting Discrepancies

clinical governance: two years experience of reporting discrepancy review in radiology

2003 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 27-32
Author(s):  
a. vohrah ◽  
j. chandy
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Governance ◽  
Reporting Discrepancies ◽  
Reporting Discrepancy

this article describes a system for reviewing reporting discrepancies encountered in our department. this system has been in operation for two years and its aim was to learn from errors being encountered. it was introduced as part of our department's approach to clinical governance.

Self-reporting discrepancies of bullying victimization and perpetration measures

2019 ◽  
Vol 32 ◽  
pp. 58-63 ◽  
Author(s):  
Katelyn K. Jetelina ◽  
Jennifer M. Reingle Gonzalez ◽  
Paula M. Cuccaro ◽  
Melissa F. Peskin ◽  
Lisa Pompeii ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Bullying Victimization ◽  
Reporting Discrepancies

Patterns of Misreporting: Partner Violence Using Matched Pairs

2015 ◽  
Vol 30 (2) ◽  
pp. 179-193 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marin R. Wenger
Keyword(s):  
Partner Violence ◽  
Theoretical Development ◽  
Matched Pairs ◽  
Adult Health ◽  
Heterosexual Couples ◽  
Public Concern ◽  
National Longitudinal Study ◽  
Policy Interventions ◽  
Reporting Discrepancies ◽  
Gendered Patterns

Intimate partner violence (IPV) is an issue of serious public concern. However, policy interventions and theoretical development have been complicated by mixed evidence about whether men or women experience higher levels of IPV. Some of this discrepancy arises from measurement and whether abuse and victimization are asked of one or both partners. This study uses matched partner data from 1,393 heterosexual couples collected in Wave III of the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent to Adult Health to examine partner IPV reporting discrepancies and develop hypotheses for why such discrepancies might exist. Consistent with expectations, the findings suggest that research on the prevalence of IPV should rely on reports from both partners, rather than just one, and that gendered patterns of social desirability create differences in men’s and women’s IPV reporting.

scholarly journals Evidence-Based Use of Cognitive Testing for Academic Interventions: A Critical Appraisal of Meta-Analytic Methodologies

2021 ◽  
Vol 6 ◽  
Author(s):  
Scott L. Decker ◽  
Jessica C. Luedke
Keyword(s):  
Causal Effect ◽  
Causal Link ◽  
Cognitive Testing ◽  
Academic Interventions ◽  
Supporting Evidence ◽  
Neurocognitive Deficits ◽  
Neurocognitive Tests ◽  
Methodological Rigor ◽  
Reporting Discrepancies ◽  
The Impact

Research suggests Specific Learning Disabilities (SLD) are directly linked to specific neurocognitive deficits that result in unexpected learning delays in academic domains for children in schools. However, meta-analytic studies have failed to find supporting evidence for using neurocognitive tests and, consequently, have discouraged their inclusion in SLD identification policies. The current study critically reviews meta-analytic findings and the methodological validity of over 200 research studies used in previous meta-analytic studies to estimate the causal effect of neurocognitive tests on intervention outcomes. Results suggest that only a very small percentage (6–12%) of studies used in previous meta-analytic studies were methodologically valid to estimate a direct effect of cognitive tests on academic intervention outcomes, with the majority of studies having no causal link between neurocognitive tests and intervention outcomes. Additionally, significant reporting discrepancies and inaccurate effect size estimates were found that warranted legitimate concerns for conclusions and policy recommendations provided in several meta-analytic studies. Given the lack of methodological rigor linking cognitive testing to academic interventions in current research, removing neurocognitive testing from learning disability evaluations may be premature. Suggestions for future studies evaluating the impact of neurocognitive tests on intervention outcomes as well as guidelines for synthesizing meta-analytic findings are discussed.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document