Journal Club Evaluation Form

1
Journal Club Evaluation Form

• Using the ACP Journal Club Format

2
Purpose of the New Form
1. Standardize Presentations
2. Give direction on questions to ask
3. Make your evaluation more research oriented
3
Two Different Forms
1. Primary Research Form
2. Meta-Analysis (study of studies) Research Form
4
Primary Research

• Using the Primary Research Form to Analyze a
  Specific Study

5
Primary Research Form
Pinney, E. M., Gerrard, M., Denney, N. W.
(1987). The Pinney sexual satisfaction
inventory. Journal of Sex Research, 23, 233-251.
6
Question
In a single sentence, what is the main question
this article asks?
7
Is it possible to create a reliable and valid
scale to measure female sexual satisfaction?
8
Design
What is the basic design of the study?
9
Randomized Control Trial (RCT)
Researchers randomly place people into
pre-determined groups.
10
Non-Randomized Clinical Trials
Researchers place people into pre-determined
groups in a non-random fashion.
11
Cohort Study
Researcher observes health outcomes of a group
that has potential exposure to a hazard over a
period of time.
12
Case Control Study
Start with people who have a specific outcome
(disease) and attempt to go backwards to find out
if there was exposure to a hazard of interest.
13
Case Series
People who have a specific identifier are placed
into a study for observation.
14
Ecological Study
Use data collected about populations and compare
them to other populations. No actual measure of
exposure is done.
15
Ecological Fallacy
Communities may differ in many factors, and one
or more of these may be the underlying reason for
difference in observed disease and death rates.
16
Survey Research
The use of an administered survey to find
information from a group directly.
17
Sexual Satisfaction
Survey Design
Every participant was given the same survey. A
convenience sample was used.
18
Setting
Physical location(s) where the study took place.
19
Large Midwestern Public University
20
Participants
Who were the participants used in this study?
-932 women in enrolled in an Introduction to
Psychology Course.
21
Participants cont
How were they found.
-932 women in enrolled in an Introduction to
Psychology Course. -522 had sex at least once and
were invited to participate -305 agreed to
participate
22
Participants cont
What is the sex makeup of the group?
-100 female
23
Participants cont
What is the mean age of the group?
-Age range was 17-24. -No mean given
24
Participants cont
Specific ailment or condition for participation?
-All participants had to have had sex at least
once.
25
Participants cont
Other demographics?
-97 were single -91 Caucasian -55
Protestant, 26 Catholic, and 14 reported no
religious affiliation
26
Intervention
What did the researchers actively do in the
study? In other words, did they give a new
medication or us a new treatment? Did they change
the dose of a medication?
Not all studies will have an actual intervention
many just watch naturally occurring phenomenon)
27
There was not an intervention in this study.
28
Main Outcome Measures
What dependent variables were the researchers
investigating? Were the researchers looking at
the length of hospital stay, incidence of a
disease or condition, effects on body systems,
etc?) ?
29
Independent Variables
Variable you are wanting to Measure.
In this study it is sexual satisfaction.
30
Dependent Variable
Variable you expect to change.

• Relationship Commitment
• Orgasm Consistency
• Contraceptive Effectiveness
• Frequency of sex per month

• Occurrence of masturbation
• Sex Guilt
• Diversity of behavior
• Religious Intensity
• Age at first Interoucrse

31
Dependent Variable cont

• Relationship length
• Number of partners

32
Description of Prediction Guide
Only answer this if you have a survival analysis
occurring in your study. What is the prediction
of the survival curve or hazard model?
33
This study did not utilize a survival analysis,
so no prediction guide was needed.
34
Main Results
What were the main findings in the article?
-The scale was shown to have two factors (General
Sexual Satisfaction and Satisfaction with
Partner)
35
Clearly Label Each Main Result.
1) General Sexual Satisfaction was a product of
Relationship commitment, orgasm consistency,
contraceptive effectiveness, and Frequency of sex.
36
2) Satisfaction with Partner was a product of
Relationship commitment and orgasm consistency
37
What statistical tools were utilized to generate
these results?
Step-wise Multiple Regressions
38
Conclusions
What did the author(s) conclude in this study?
Did they provide instructions on how a physician
could incorporate their findings into their daily
practices?
39

• It is possible to measure womens sexual
  satisfaction.
• Women in committed relationships, who use
  effective contraceptive methods, who are more
  consistently orgasmic, and who report higher
  frequencies of sexual intercourse tend to report
  higher levels of satisfaction.

40
Commentary
This section is your personal response to the
study. Do you see any errors in the
interpretation or generation of the statistics
used in this article? Are there any design
flaws? Are the results applicable to the type of
patients and setting evaluated in this study?
Are the results generalizable to patients outside
of the study? How does this study relate to
other medical literature? Do you think this was
a good study? How can you incorporate this into
your personal practice?
41
My Commentary

• They used college students.
• Good use of regressions.
• Since the used college students its possible
  that the study is not generalize.
• I think its a good study
• How do you think it could be incorporated.

42
Meta-Analysis (study of studies) Research Form
Bem, D. J., and Honorton, C. (1994). Dose Psi
exist? Replicable evidence for an anomalous
process of information transfer. Psychological
Bulletin, 115, 4-18.
43
What is Meta-Analysis?
The critical review and integration of findings
of separate studies (Abramson Abramson, 2001).
44
Question
In a single sentence, what is the main question
this article asks?
45
Do the scientific studies in Psi using the
Ganzfeld Procedures truly add any merit
scientifically to the area of parapsychology?
46
Data Sources
Where did the articles in the study come from?
Provide a list of all the articles discussed in
the study.
47
Two previous Meta-analyses were study (one
skeptic and one advocate were used. Along with
11 new (after 1986) studies were examined.
48
Study Selection
How did the author(s) select the articles to be
studied?
The author chose the first two studies because of
their polarized perceptions of Psi. The other 11
studies were selected because they followed the
APA guidelines for parapsychological research.
49
Study Selection
What types of data were taken from the article?
How was this done?
Primarily results related to significance of
findings and effect sizes were taken. This
process was not systematic.
50
Main Results
What were the main findings in the article? If
there is more than one, clearly label each main
result. Did the author(s) of the meta analysis
perform their own statistical analysis on the
data? If so, what did they do?
51
Clearly Label Each Main Result.
1) Parapsychologists who believe in Psi had more
favorable results than the skeptic.
2) The studies since 1986 using APA guidelines
did not support the effectiveness of Psi.
52
Conclusions
What did the author(s) conclude in this study?
Did they provide instructions on how a physician
could incorporate their findings into their daily
practices?
53

• It is possible that there is a desirability
  effect for Psi Research if you want to see it,
  it will happen.
• Currently research does not support the
  usefulness of Psi research through the Ganzfield
  Procedures.

54
Commentary
This section is your personal response to the
study. Do you see any errors in the
interpretation or generation of the statistics
used in this article? Are there any flaws in the
way articles were chosen for study? Did the
author(s) present the other studies in an
accurate manner? Are the results applicable to
the type of patients and setting evaluated in
this study? Are the results generalizable to
patients outside of the study? Do you think this
was a good meta-analysis? How can you
incorporate this into your personal practice?)
55
My Commentary

• The selection of studies was comprehensive
• No further statistical analyses were completed
  using the data
• Good overview of statistical significance and
  effect sizes