WriteSim TCExam--an open source text simulation environment for training novice researchers in scientific writing.

BACKGROUND: The ability to write clearly and effectively is of central importance to the scientific enterprise. Encouraged by the success of simulation environments in other biomedical sciences, we developed WriteSim TCExam, an open-source, Web-based, textual simulation environment for teaching effective writing techniques to novice researchers. We shortlisted and modified an existing open source application - TCExam to serve as a textual simulation environment. After testing usability internally in our team, we conducted formal field usability studies with novice researchers. These were followed by formal surveys with researchers fitting the role of administrators and users (novice researchers) RESULTS: The development process was guided by feedback from usability tests within our research team. Online surveys and formal studies, involving members of the Research on Research group and selected novice researchers, show that the application is user-friendly. Additionally it has been used to train 25 novice researchers in scientific writing to date and has generated encouraging results. CONCLUSION: WriteSim TCExam is the first Web-based, open-source textual simulation environment designed to complement traditional scientific writing instruction. While initial reviews by students and educators have been positive, a formal study is needed to measure its benefits in comparison to standard instructional methods.

Qualitative analysis of the interdisciplinary interaction between data analysis specialists and novice clinical researchers.

BACKGROUND: The inherent complexity of statistical methods and clinical phenomena compel researchers with diverse domains of expertise to work in interdisciplinary teams, where none of them have a complete knowledge in their counterpart's field. As a result, knowledge exchange may often be characterized by miscommunication leading to misinterpretation, ultimately resulting in errors in research and even clinical practice. Though communication has a central role in interdisciplinary collaboration and since miscommunication can have a negative impact on research processes, to the best of our knowledge, no study has yet explored how data analysis specialists and clinical researchers communicate over time. METHODS/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: We conducted qualitative analysis of encounters between clinical researchers and data analysis specialists (epidemiologist, clinical epidemiologist, and data mining specialist). These encounters were recorded and systematically analyzed using a grounded theory methodology for extraction of emerging themes, followed by data triangulation and analysis of negative cases for validation. A policy analysis was then performed using a system dynamics methodology looking for potential interventions to improve this process. Four major emerging themes were found. Definitions using lay language were frequently employed as a way to bridge the language gap between the specialties. Thought experiments presented a series of "what if" situations that helped clarify how the method or information from the other field would behave, if exposed to alternative situations, ultimately aiding in explaining their main objective. Metaphors and analogies were used to translate concepts across fields, from the unfamiliar to the familiar. Prolepsis was used to anticipate study outcomes, thus helping specialists understand the current context based on an understanding of their final goal. CONCLUSION/SIGNIFICANCE: The communication between clinical researchers and data analysis specialists presents multiple challenges that can lead to errors.

Entorhinal cortex volume in older adults: reliability and validity considerations for three published measurement protocols.

Measuring the entorhinal cortex (ERC) is challenging due to lateral border discrimination from the perirhinal cortex. From a sample of 39 nondemented older adults who completed volumetric image scans and verbal memory indices, we examined reliability and validity concerns for three ERC protocols with different lateral boundary guidelines (i.e., Goncharova, Dickerson, Stoub, & deToledo-Morrell, 2001; Honeycutt et al., 1998; Insausti et al., 1998). We used three novice raters to assess inter-rater reliability on a subset of scans (216 total ERCs), with the entire dataset measured by one rater with strong intra-rater reliability on each technique (234 total ERCs). We found moderate to strong inter-rater reliability for two techniques with consistent ERC lateral boundary endpoints (Goncharova, Honeycutt), with negligible to moderate reliability for the technique requiring consideration of collateral sulcal depth (Insausti). Left ERC and story memory associations were moderate and positive for two techniques designed to exclude the perirhinal cortex (Insausti, Goncharova), with the Insausti technique continuing to explain 10% of memory score variance after additionally controlling for depression symptom severity. Right ERC-story memory associations were nonexistent after excluding an outlier. Researchers are encouraged to consider challenges of rater training for ERC techniques and how lateral boundary endpoints may impact structure-function associations.