1 / 17

Replication in Prevention Science Valentine, et al

Replication in Prevention Science Valentine, et al. Expanding on the Flay et al 2005 article by…. Addressing the role of replication in prevention research or the ways in which replication should influence decisions regarding suitability of programs & policies for dissemination

brock
Download Presentation

Replication in Prevention Science Valentine, et al

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Replication in Prevention • Science • Valentine, et al

  2. Expanding on the Flay et al 2005 article by… • Addressing the role of replication in prevention research or the ways in which replication should influence decisions regarding suitability of programs & policies for dissemination • “Does Study B replicate Study A?”

  3. Document foundation: • Replication is an ongoing process of assembling a body of empirical evidence that speaks to the authenticity, robustness, & size of an effect. • “What does the available evidence say about the size of the effect attributable to Intervention A?” • The use of meta-analysis principles (even with only 2 studies) • Questions considering replication vary a great deal, therefore this article: • Explores reasons for conducting replication • Types of research that can be considered replications • Considers factors that could influence the extent of replication research

  4. Replication Research (RR) Context: Reproducibility implies: • Specifics of a study design & implementation are reported at a level of detail that allows other researchers to completely repeat the experiment • Results are equivalent (& not, “both studies reject the null”) What challenges do social scientists face with replicating studies?

  5. Replications are vital: • In efforts to identify effective interventions • To spur development of new interventions base don theoretical & empirical considerations Understanding RR is critical in the evolution of prevention science & practice.

  6. Types of RR: • Statistical replication: Testing the effects found in one study were due to chance • Generalizability replication: Testing whether relationship observed in one study would generalize to conditions not observed in that study • Implementation replication:Testing the effects of variations on program implementation • Theory development generalization: Testing causal mechanisms underlying an intervention • Ad hoc replications: Study conditions are not systematic or covary with other changes

  7. Interpreting RR: • Can a study be considered a replicate of another? • Subjective logic • Empirical evidence • Inferential framework • Ongoing evaluation necessary • Statistical framework • Important background assumptions • All relevant studies available (publication bias an issue) • Comparable study designs • Reframing the question about replication • “What does the available evidence say about the seize of the effect attribute to Intervention A?” (i.e. a focus on effect size and & range of intervention effects)

  8. Group Exercise- Part 2: Refer to the 6 case studies using multiple inferential strategies. Work in groups of 4 to come up with a case study that uses multiple inferential strategies.

  9. Investigator Independence in RR:Group Exercise- Part 3: • Scientists are human. What’s the problem with this with regards to RR? • Should scientists/program developers be trusted? • Why is it important to disclose financial incentives? • Why are replications an appropriate stage for investigators with regards to prevention science? • Work in groups of 4. Briefly answer the following questions.

  10. Highest standards of investigator independence: • Funded by a body unrelated to the program under investigation & its developer • Foresee no involvement with the development of the program being evaluated Investigators involved in RR should strive for this.

  11. Fostering a Replication-Friendly Environment • Incentives & disincentives for doing replications • Braided funding • Place priority on programs with replicated results • Value RR & therefore publish RR • Reward scientists doing RR • Guide program, policy, & practice relevant to PH • Improve reporting standards • CONSORT • SPR’s Standards for Efficacy, Effectiveness, & Dissemination • Finding ways to report negative results (e.g. Journal of Negative Results in Biomedical Research)

  12. Replication & Dissemination of Evidence-Based Practice Replication can be done efficiently • As an early stage of testing an effective program in a new community • Dynamic waitlists • Early state of partnership building is critical • Integrating replication into dissemination ensures effectiveness of the program & training

  13. Summary Prevention science can impact the public’s health if: • More replications are conducted • Replications are systematic, thoughtful, & conducted with full knowledge of the trials that have preceded them • State-of-the art techniques are used to summarize the body of evidence on the effects of interventions

More Related