...
首页> 外文期刊>Evidence based communication assessment and intervention >What counts as evidence? Swimming against the tide: Valuing both clinically informed experimentally control ed case series and randomized controlled trials in intervention research
【24h】

What counts as evidence? Swimming against the tide: Valuing both clinically informed experimentally control ed case series and randomized controlled trials in intervention research

机译:什么是证据? 潮流游泳:重视临床上知情的实验控制ED案例系列和干预研究中的随机对照试验

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

Research into intervention with people with speech and language needs often takes the form of single-case/case series experimental studies (SCEDs) or randomized controlled trials (RCTs). This paper explores the nature of these designs, including their strengths/weaknesses and highlights the value of understanding the intervention outcomes for individual participants. An online survey gathered information on speech and language therapists' views on their use of the different research designs. We conclude that both research designs are used to inform practice. SCEDs, in particular, are used in developing theories of intervention and informing therapy with individuals. Sound experimental intervention studies of both designs are needed.
机译:与言语和语言的人员进行干预往往采用单壳/案例系列实验研究(SCEDS)或随机对照试验(RCTS)的形式。 本文探讨了这些设计的性质,包括它们的优势/弱点,并突出了了解个人参与者的干预结果的价值。 在线调查收集了关于言语和语言治疗师对他们使用不同研究设计的看法的信息。 我们得出结论,两项研究设计都用于告知实践。 特别是斯科斯在开发干预的理论和与个人提供信息。 需要对两种设计进行声音实验干预研究。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号