Seminar  in  Advanced  Research  Methods   Primary  Instructor   CRN:  94945  

Seminar in Advanced Research Methods PSYS 303;; Fall 2015 CRN: 94945 Thursdays: 1:15 PM to 4:15 PM Primary Instructor Matthew Price, PhD Office: John Dewey Hall 332 Office hours: By appointment E-­mail: [email protected] Course Description Students in this course will receive instruction in the fundamental principles of research study design and exposure to cutting edge methods. The course will focus on the theoretical and philosophical underpinnings of experimental and observational design. This will include experimental paradigms, longitudinal research, clinical trials, community-­engaged research, and mixed method work. Review of pragmatic topics in research such as funding, publication, and programmatic work will be presented. Course Objectives Upon completion of this course, students will: • Understand the rationale underlying experimental methods • Design an experiment to test a specific hypothesis • Understand the core components of a clinical trial • Identify the role of funding in building a research program • Draft a successful grant propsal Recommended Textbooks Kazdin, A.E. (2003). Research design in clinical psychology (4th Ed. Boston: Allyn & Bacon) Roberts, M., & Ilardi, S. S. (Eds.). (2008). Handbook of research methods in clinical psychology. John Wiley & Sons. Barker, C., Pistrang, N., & Elliott, R. (2002). Research methods in clinical psychology. London: Wiley. Russell, S. W., & Morrison, D. C. (2010). The Grant Application Writer's Workbook: National Institutes of Health. Grant Writers' Seminars and Workshops, LLC. (http://www.grantcentral.com/workbooks/national-­institutes-­of-­
health/) Software You will need a copy of Microsoft office for this course. It can be obtained from UVM: http://go.uvm.edu/getoffice Blackboard Many aspects of this course are presented and available through the course website on Blackboard. Lecture materials, assignments, and the majority of class-­wide communications will occur through Blackboard. It is your responsibility to stay current with this material. In other words, check blackboard frequently. Professional Correspondence You will most likely contact the instructor of this course via e-­mail during the semester. All correspondences must be written in a professional manner. Such communication should begin with “Dr. Price,” and include a brief message that begins with your primary reason for contacting the instructor;; not include shorthand, slang, or unnecessary abbreviations (e.g. LOL, wassup?, plz);; and is signed with your full preferred name (e.g. – James Smith). Brief messages are operationally defined as consisting of 2-­3 sentences. E-­mails and correspondences that do not follow this format will not receive a response. Furthermore, it is highly recommended that you use this structure when contacting all professionals at academic institutions. E-­mail communication for this class must occur through your @uvm.edu e-­mail address. Messages sent to the instructor must be sent to [email protected]. Communication sent via other e-­mail addresses will not receive a response. Final Grades Your final grade is a function of 100 points (see Assignments section below). Final grade distributions are displayed in Table 1. Assignments Your grade will be based on the following. Article Reviews (x2): You will be assigned two articles in which you will review and critique the reported methodology. First, you will read the introduction section and identify the hypotheses of the study. Using the background literature provided, your knowledge of the topic, and the hypotheses as stated by the authors, you will describe how you test the stated hypotheses in a realistic manner. That is, you are not allowed to commit major ethical violations or alter the limits of space and time in your design. This description should clearly indicate the decisions you made in your design as well as a brief (1-­2 sentence) rationale for each. Second, you will compare the methodology that you created based on their introduction to the methodology used in the study. Compare and contrast your respective approaches. Where you and the author disagree, determine which methodology is superior. Provide a rationale for your choice. In situations where your believe your design decision was superior, if possible, provide an explanation for why the authors likely used their approach. Article reviews should be bulleted paragraphs. The assignment should be no longer than 5 pages, double-­spaced, 11 point Arial font. Each article review is worth 10 points. Grant Proposal: During this class, you will write a grant Table 2: Points for Grant Proposal proposal consistent with the parameters for an NIH F31 Section Points st
Specific Aims (1 submission) 10 points grant (http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/pa-­files/PA-­14-­
nd
Specific Aims (2 Submission) 10 points 147.html. Your proposal will include the Specific Aims st
Significance and innovation (1 submission) 10 points and Research Strategy sections. You will submit sections nd
Significance and innovation (2 submission) 10 points of your grant for feedback throughout the term that will be st
Approach (1 submission) 10 points nd
worth the amounts listed in Table 2. It is recommended Approach (2 submission) 10 points that you use this assignment to advance your 2nd year Final resubmission 15 points project or dissertation. Information about the length of each section and related details can be found in the SF424 application and will be written according to the NIH SF424 page guidelines (http://grants.nih.gov/grants/funding/424/SF424_RR_Guide_Fellowship_VerC.pdf). Grant Review: All students will participate in a mock NIH review on the last day of class. You will have to review 3 proposals and provide written feedback. Written feedback will be given as per NIH guidelines: (http://public.csr.nih.gov/ReviewerResources/GeneralReviewGuidelines/Pages/default.aspx). You will serve as the primary reviewer on 1, the secondary reviewer on 1 and the tertiary reviewer on 1. You will not review your own proposal. You will receive 5 points for the quality of your written review and your contribution to the in-­class discussion. Attendance and Classroom Behavior In order to do well in this class you will need to attend regularly. As this is a graduate class, attendance is expected. Unexcused absences will result in -­5 points from your total grade. An unexcused absence includes not attending class without prior notification of your absence. All members of the class are expected to treat each other in a respectful, civil manner. Students who exhibit behaviors that the lab assistants or I consider obstructive or disruptive to the class or its learning activities will be treated according to the Code of Students Rights and Responsibilities. Disruptive students will first receive a verbal warning. Continued violations will result in a written warning, a meeting with the Chair of the Department of Psychological Science, and finally formal disciplinary action at the University level. In addition, any student who engages in disruptive behavior may be dismissed from the class, assessed point deductions from his/her final grade, and – for repeat offenders – disenrolled from the course. Table 1: Points for final grade Points Grade 100-­93 A 92-­90 A-­ 89-­87 B+ 86-­83 B 82-­80 B-­ 79-­77 C+ 76-­73 C 72-­70 C-­ 69-­63 D 62 and below F Veterans’ Attendance: The Department of Veterans Affairs requires that institutions of higher learning immediately report to them when a student discontinues attendance. Veterans who are receiving benefits to fund their education will be reported to the DVA if they do not attend class for a period of two weeks or more. Make Up Policy & Late Assignments There is no make up policy. Late assignments will receive a 15-­point deduction for each day that they are late. Assignments more than 1 week late will receive 0 points. Mobile/Electronic Devices You are required to SILENCE all electronic devices that make noise during class. If a device cannot be silenced it must be turned off. Students who have electronic devices that go off during class will be penalized by deducting points from their total grade as determined by the professor. The use of personal devices during class time is permitted only during times that are sanctioned by the instructor. These times primarily include periods of working as a team. Policy on Cheating (Academic Honesty) The Department of Psychological Science follows the University system policy on academic honesty that is published on the student affairs website. You may download a version from here: http://www.uvm.edu/policies/student/acadintegrity.pdf. You are expected to know the University’s standards of academic honesty and are responsible for abiding by these standards. Lack of knowledge of these standards is not an acceptable defense for academic misconduct. Acts of academic dishonesty include: • Plagiarism: presenting another person's work as your own, whether or not doing so was intentional. • Cheating on assignments: giving or receiving unauthorized help before, during, or after an assignment. • Unauthorized collaboration: submitting academic work, whole or in part, as your individual effort when it has been developed in collaboration with another person or source. • Falsification: misrepresenting material or fabricating information in order to gain an unfair advantage over others. • Multiple submissions: submitting the same work, whole or in part, for credit more than once without the explicit consent of the faculty member(s) to whom the material is submitted. The penalty for academic misconduct in this course varies from a 0 on the assignment to a failing grade in the course, depending on the severity of the offense and the student’s history of academic conduct. Disciplinary action may be taken in addition to the academic penalty if the instructor, department, college, or university feels such action is warranted. All acts of academic dishonesty will be reported to the Chair of the Department of Psychology, the Director of Undergraduate Studies in Psychology, and the Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences. All members of the University community, including students, faculty, and staff, are expected to report violations of academic conduct to the appropriate authorities. Failure to report academic misconduct of which you are aware reflects complicity with the misconduct. Such complicity may also result in an academic and/or disciplinary penalty. Disabling Conditions University of Vermont complies with Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and the Americans with Students with Disabilities. If you have a documented disability that may have an impact on your work in this class, and for which you require accommodations, please see me as soon as possible so that we can discuss arrangements. Accommodations, Consultation, Collaboration, and Educational Support (ACCESS) located in Room A-­170 of the Living Learning Center (802-­656-­7753;; [email protected]), is available to assist you and can provide services. Please refer to their website (http://www.uvm.edu/access/) to identify how to obtain services. Confidentiality, Self-­Disclosure, and Well Being Although not warranted by the nature of the course material, some students may elect to disclose personal information. It is expected that all information discussed in class remain completely confidential. Confidentiality includes not discussing topics with students who are not members of the class, discussing personal material outside of class, or discussing such material in public locations. I ask that all students respect the privacy and support the well being of their classmates. Although we can all do our best to make this a safe environment, full and complete confidentiality cannot be guaranteed. Students are advised to use their best judgment when disclosing personal information. It can be helpful to quietly ask yourself, “Do I want all of my classmates and a professor to know this information?” before such a disclosure. Additionally, the current course material may prove distressing for some or help others determine that they may benefit from psychological services. The University of Vermont Counseling and Psychiatry Services (CAPS) offers free counseling to UVM students. You are encouraged to contact CAPS (802-­656-­3340;; http://www.uvm.edu/~chwb/psych/) if you think that treatment would be helpful. Reading List Textbooks • Kazdin, A.E. (2003). Research design in clinical psychology (4th Ed. Boston: Allyn & Bacon) • Roberts, M., & Ilardi, S. S. (Eds.). (2008). Handbook of research methods in clinical psychology. John Wiley & Sons. • Barker, C., Pistrang, N., & Elliott, R. (2002). Research methods in clinical psychology. London: Wiley. • Russell, S. W., & Morrison, D. C. (2010). The Grant Application Writer's Workbook: National Institutes of Health. Grant Writers' Seminars and Workshops, LLC. (http://www.grantcentral.com/workbooks/national-­
institutes-­of-­health/) Sept 10th Strategic Plan – National Institute of Drug Abuse (2010): https://d14rmgtrwzf5a.cloudfront.net/sites/default/files/stratplan.pdf Strategic Plan – National Institute of Mental Health (2015): http://www.nimh.nih.gov/about/strategic-­planning-­
reports/index.shtml Strategic Plan (Scientific Vision) – National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (2012): https://www.nichd.nih.gov/publications/pubs/Documents/NICHD_scientific_vision120412.pdf October 8th Singer, J. D., & Willett, J. B. (2003). Applied longitudinal data analysis: Modeling change and event occurrence. Oxford university press. – Chapters 1,2 October 15th Begg, C., Cho, M., Eastwood, S., Horton, R., Moher, D., Olkin, I., ... & Stroup, D. F. (1996). Improving the quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials: the CONSORT statement. Jama, 276(8), 637-­639. Insel, T. R., & Gogtay, N. (2014). National Institute of Mental Health clinical trials: new opportunities, new expectations. JAMA psychiatry, 71(7), 745-­746. Leon, A. C., Davis, L. L., & Kraemer, H. C. (2011). The role and interpretation of pilot studies in clinical research. Journal of psychiatric research, 45(5), 626-­629. Moher, D., Schulz, K. F., Altman, D. G., & Consort Group. (2001). The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-­group randomised trials. The Lancet, 357(9263), 1191-­1194. Schulz, K. F., Altman, D. G., & Moher, D. (2010). CONSORT 2010 statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. BMC medicine, 8(1), 18. October 22nd Almirall, D., Compton, S. N., Gunlicks-­‐Stoessel, M., Duan, N., & Murphy, S. A. (2012). Designing a pilot sequential multiple assignment randomized trial for developing an adaptive treatment strategy. Statistics in medicine, 31(17), 1887-­1902. Collins, L. M., Murphy, S. A., & Strecher, V. (2007). The multiphase optimization strategy (MOST) and the sequential multiple assignment randomized trial (SMART): new methods for more potent eHealth interventions. American journal of preventive medicine, 32(5), S112-­S118. Collins, L. M., Baker, T. B., Mermelstein, R. J., Piper, M. E., Jorenby, D. E., Smith, S. S., ... & Fiore, M. C. (2011). The multiphase optimization strategy for engineering effective tobacco use interventions. Annals of behavioral medicine,41(2), 208-­226. Piaggio, G., Elbourne, D. R., Altman, D. G., Pocock, S. J., Evans, S. J., & CONSORT Group. (2006). Reporting of noninferiority and equivalence randomized trials: an extension of the CONSORT statement. Jama, 295(10), 1152-­1160. Piaggio, G., Elbourne, D. R., Pocock, S. J., Evans, S. J., Altman, D. G., & CONSORT Group. (2012). Reporting of noninferiority and equivalence randomized trials: extension of the CONSORT 2010 statement. Jama, 308(24), 2594-­2604. October 29th Israel, B. A., Coombe, C. M., Cheezum, R. R., Schulz, A. J., McGranaghan, R. J., Lichtenstein, R., ... & Burris, A. (2010). Community-­based participatory research: a capacity-­building approach for policy advocacy aimed at eliminating health disparities. American Journal of Public Health, 100(11), 2094-­2102. Koepsell, T. D., Zatzick, D. F., & Rivara, F. P. (2011). Estimating the population impact of preventive interventions from randomized trials. American journal of preventive medicine, 40(2), 191-­198. Wallerstein, N. B., & Duran, B. (2006). Using community-­based participatory research to address health disparities. Health promotion practice, 7(3), 312-­323. Wallerstein, N., & Duran, B. (2010). Community-­based participatory research contributions to intervention research: the intersection of science and practice to improve health equity. American journal of public health, 100(S1), S40-­S46. November 5th Colditz, G. A. (2012). The promise and challenges of dissemination and implementation research. Dissemination and implementation research in health: Translating science to practice, 3-­22. Glasgow, R. E., Vogt, T. M., & Boles, S. M. (1999). Evaluating the public health impact of health promotion interventions: the RE-­AIM framework. American journal of public health, 89(9), 1322-­1327. Glasgow, R. E., & Steiner, J. F. (2012). Comparative effectiveness research to accelerate translation: Recommendations for an emerging field of science. Dissemination and implementation research in health: Translating science to practice, 72-­93. Landsverk, I. J., Brown, C. H., Chamberlain, P., Palinkas, L., Ogihara, M., Czaja, S., ... & Horwitz, S. M. (2012). Design and Analysis in Dissemination and Implementation Research. Dissemination and implementation research in health: Translating science to practice, 225-­260. November 12th Flick, U. (2009). An introduction to qualitative research. Sage. 2 Sept 10th 3 Sept 17th 4 Sept 24th 5 Oct 1st 6 Oct 8th 7 Oct 15th 8 Oct 22nd 9 Oct 29th 10 Nov 5th 11 Nov 12th 12 Nov 19th Tentative Course Schedule Topic Reading Review syllabus and develop topic for Syllabus grant proposal to be shared at next class Developing a program of research in Kazdin: 1,5;; the present day Roberts & Ilardi: 3 RFA: Present your research topic Barker et al.: 2 Strategic Plan: NIMH, NIDA, NICHD Experimental Design 1 Kazdin 6,7;; RFA: R21 Roberst & Ilardi: 6;; Experimental Design 2 Kazdin, 8;; RFA: Ecologically valid experiments Barker et al: 8 Measurement and paradigm selection: Kazdin 2, 3, 4;; RFA: Interdisciplinary and translational Roberst & Ilardi: 2 science Barker et al: 4 Longitudinal designs Singer & Willett 1, 2 RFA: Developmental cohorts Randomized controlled trials 1 Kazdin 14 RFA: Pilot RCT Begg et al., 1996;; Moher et al., 2001;; Schulz et al. 2010;; Leon et al., 2011;; Insel and Gogtay 2014 Randomized controlled trials 2 Piaggio et al., 2006;; RFA: Full RCT Piaggio et al., 2012;; Collins et al., 2007;; Collins et al., 2011;; Almirall et al., 2012 Community-­based participatory Koepsell et al., 2011;; research;; Wallerstein and Duran 2006;; RFA: CBPR effectiveness trial Wallerstein and Duran 2010;; Israel et al., 2010 Dissemination Implementation Glasgow et al., 1999;; Research Colditz, 2012;; RFA: D&I Glasgow & Steiner, 2012;; Landsverk et al., 2012 Mixed methods research;; qualitative Flick: 11, 12;; designs Roberts & Ilardi: 17 RFA: Mixed-­method study Barker et al: 5 Grantsmanship 13 14 Nov 26th Dec 3rd Thanksgiving Day: No class Grant reviews in-­class Proposals for class 15 Dec 17th FINAL PROPOSAL DUE Week Date 1 Sept 3rd Due -­ -­ Article Review 1 Specific Aims 1 Article Review 2 Specific Aims 2 -­ Significance and Innovation 1 Approach 1 Significance and Innovation 2 Approach 2 Proposal submission Written grant reviews Final proposal