Jump to content

Polytrix

Members
  • Content Count

    957
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

6 Neutral

1 Follower

About Polytrix

  • Rank
    Member

Previous Fields

  • Country
    United Kingdom

Profile Information

Recent Profile Visitors

257 profile views
  1. Hi! So I'm after a new tape casette deck (preferably space for two tapes). I think mine is soon to die. I'm assuming I need to go Ebay for this? I'm just looking for three head with record in and two casette capacity and serviced so it won't fuck up on me - I think the Technics ones are good? How much £ are we talking? Any advice? Also looking for a cheap but decent condenser mic to go direct in to my focusrite interface. I have the Zoom H4N but I can't really live monitor with it going into my DAW. I do a lot of acuostic guitar recording and perc recording so just want a good all rounder condenser mic. Oh and some kind of stand too! Any good experiences?
  2. In all seriousness, my post about Autism slurs is still very valid but upon reflection I feel as though most people have sufficient intelligence to filter through the bs on here and find awesome people. I certainly have.
  3. ENJOY. LOVE THIS IN PLACES. DEFINTELY SAMPLE WORTHY Sorry caps peace
  4. As a soon to be qualified Speech and Language Therapist, I would fully agree with lots of these sentiments. The autism discussion is really toxic and in my mind simply isn't something that should be so frequently joked about here. There's being funny and there's being smart.
  5. Yeah Lateralus is genuinely something quite special I think. I'll shut up now tho. Hope you're all well!
  6. Potentially track will sound better in context I think. I actually really like it. Especially the outro with the burning distorted riff. I do hope the rest of it is even moree experimental though. Lateralus is an absolute classic in my book.
  7. This is ace. Finally getting round to listening to it properly.
  8. Haha go for it. I think it's because these are experimental single case studies and aren't always trying to be super analytical. Just makes life harder for me tho :( thanks for help people. I plan to calculate effect sizes when I can from the data or just use what I've got in a more general way.
  9. hmm maybe. Just not sure if that's a measure of change tho...will have more of a think tomorrow. Thanks dude.
  10. I suppose I could go off significance values yes but that's not really a measure of efficacy I think. I want to be able to say that the approach taken in article X/Y/Z was more less effective than the approach taken in article XYZ. Not sure maybe I'm just getting confused about al this. Cheers all the same dude.
  11. Thanks man. Just for further information, I'm following the methods section of two similar systematic reviews (extracts below) so my thinking is kind of based on what they've detailed as to be logical when facing this challenge (i.e. different research papers reporting efficacy in different statistical ways): So one article giving me good data in an effectsize way for what I'm interested in would be this: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Swathi_Kiran3/publication/240040890_Semantic_feature_analysis_treatment_in_Spanish-English_and_French-English_bilingual_aphasia/links/55ece3e108ae21d099c743a7/Semantic-feature-analysis-treatment-in-Spanish-English-and-French-English-bilingual-aphasia.pdf Then there are a selection of articles giving what I think to be effect size data in a different way (McNemar), like this one: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Monica_Norvik/publication/318740877_Cross-linguistic_transfer_effects_of_verb-production_therapy_in_two_cases_of_multilingual_aphasia/links/5d132996299bf1547c7f58df/Cross-linguistic-transfer-effects-of-verb-production-therapy-in-two-cases-of-multilingual-aphasia.pdf And then there are less useful articles reporting efficacy in ways like this: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Lisa_Edmonds/publication/6878417_Effect_of_Semantic_Naming_Treatment_on_Crosslinguistic_Generalization_in_Bilingual_Aphasia/links/09e4150b65ea2decb3000000/Effect-of-Semantic-Naming-Treatment-on-Crosslinguistic-Generalization-in-Bilingual-Aphasia.pdf 1 - Each study was examined for the question(s) which it addressed and relevant pre- and post-therapy data were extracted.We computed statistical significance for the pre- and post- treatment scores using the McNemar’s change test (p < 0.05, Seigel & Castellan,1988).3 There were two primary reasons for performing the statistical computations. Some studies failed to report any statistical measure (e.g., Faroqi & Chengappa, 1996; Gil & Goral, 2004; Khamis, Venkert-Olenik, & Gil, 1996). A few other studies reported parametric statistical tests whose assumptions of normality and independence were not met by the study design and data. McNemar’s change test is a non-parametric test for paired nominal measures such as accuracy data, and has been used by several aphasiologists to compute statistical significance of treatment-induced changes in behavioral scores (Faroqi-Shah, 2008; Rochon, Laird, Bose, & Scofield, 2005). The use of a consistent statistical measure makes comparisons of statistical significance across studies more valid. 2 - As well as describing the treatment outcomes of included studies, the clinical efficacy of SFA was determined by calculating effect sizes. Effect sizes could be calculated only in those studies that reported sufficient data. To calculate, it was necessary to determine the individual values for the pretreatment and posttreatment phases for each set of trained items. Cohen’s d statistic was used to calculate effect size as described by Busk and Serlin (1992). The magnitude of change in performance was determined according to the benchmarks for lexical retrieval studies described by Beeson and Robey (2006). The benchmarks were 4.0, 7.0, and 10.1 for small, medium, and large effect sizes, respectively. Where Cohen’s d could not be calculated, the percent of nonoverlapping data (PND) was calculated. PND is the most widely used method of calculating effect size in single case experimental designs (Gast, 2010; Schlosser, Lee, & Wendt, 2008). PND is the percentage of Phase B data points (the treatment phase) that do not overlap with Phase A data points (baseline or no treatment). To determine the magnitude of effect, benchmarks put forth by Scruggs, Mastropieri, and Casto (1987) were used. PND scores higher than 90% were considered to demonstrate a highly effective treatment, PND of 70%–90% were interpreted as a moderate treatment outcome, and PND scores of 50%–70% were considered a questionable effect. PND scores less than 50% were interpreted as an ineffective intervention because performance during intervention had not affected behavior beyond baseline performance.
  12. I'm writing the methods section to a systematic review and I want to mention my approach to comparing Treatment Outcomes and Clinical Efficacy. The title of the systematic review is: A systematic review into the efficacy of interventions utilising semantics in the treatment of bilingual Aphasia. So basically I'm reporting on 12 selected research studies and the efficacy of a specific intervention type as mentioned in these studies. 4/12 articles report effect sizes which I can compare and interpret from established criteria but the remaining 8 either report McNemar X2/report ANOVA/T-test results/simply report pre/post intervention % score differences. My thought at this stage is to try and use the data available in the non-effect-size reporting articles/convert other measures so I have 12 effect sizes to compare...problem is, I have no idea how to do this and don't know if I have sufficient data available to me to even do this as the research papers when not reporting effect sizes don't give me mean data in two groups and don't provide me with standard deviation scores. So I don't have data sets to work with. What should I do? Posted that elsewhere, sorry for white text situation!! 🙂
×
×
  • Create New...