A disease with two faces? Re-naming ME/CFS
Persuasion Smith covers the bases on the misleading and disreputable name for our disease we've all been saddled with ...
Discuss the article on the Forums.

(Not from a paper) Self-report data should be labelled as such

Discussion in 'Other Health News and Research' started by Dolphin, Jan 31, 2012.

  1. Dolphin

    Dolphin Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,296
    Likes:
    7,981
    http://www.intropsych.com/ch01_psychology_and_science/self-report_measures.html

    I thought this was interesting.
    For example, one will often see in reviews that GET or CBT has been shown to improve "physical functioning". By the nature of the words, one might think some sort of objective test of physical functioning was used. However, what is being referred to in reviews (it may be different in some individual studies) is the results of a questionnaire, the SF-36 physical functioning subscale (which might be subject to response biases). According to the guidance I quoted, they should be making clear it is "self-report" data.

    Sometimes the physical functioning finding is extrapolated further e.g. GET or CBT has been shown to restore the ability to work. Again, often/usually what is being referred to is the results of the SF-36 physical functioning questionnaire. But again the self-report nature of the data is often not made explicit.
     

See more popular forum discussions.

Share This Page