brintellex
ValprolBanner
Annals of Indian Academy of Neurology
  Users Online: 623 Home | About the Journal | InstructionsCurrent Issue | Back IssuesLogin      Print this page Email this page  Small font size Default font size Increase font size
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2020  |  Volume : 23  |  Issue : 8  |  Page : 130-134

Maintaining research fidelity: Remote training and monitoring of clinical assistants in aphasia research


Department of Communication Sciences and Disorders, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA, USA

Correspondence Address:
Ms. Barnali Mazumdar
Department of Communication Sciences and Disorders, Louisiana State University, 422 Hatcher Hall, Baton Rouge, LA 70803
USA
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/aian.AIAN_489_20

Rights and Permissions

Background: In aphasia research, to improve a study's reliability, the aphasia journals compel their authors to report fidelity. Aphasia researchers are mostly concerned about Type I and Type II errors to maintain the level of confidence. However, the third type (Type III error) can significantly affect the study outcomes and question the research fidelity. Objective: This study explains the methodology of how investigators maintained research fidelity in the context of hiring and training remote data collectors and conducted a multi-site data collection. Methods: The present study used a descriptive analysis design to explicate the three-step process of remote data collection: (1) remotely selecting and training data collectors, (2) remotely supervising data collection and data management, and (3) optimizing and monitoring screening/assessment fidelity. At the initial step, investigators interviewed seven candidates and short-listed four of them, who were trained using a standard training protocol and participated in a mock data collection. For the next two steps, data collectors video-recorded each study session and e-shared the data with the investigator, who watched all the video-recordings and provided necessary feedback with a focus on the screening sections. The screenings were a part of the inclusion-exclusion criteria. Results: Two data collectors (both clinical psychologists) with the highest scores were selected and received final training. One-to-one e-supervision by the investigator resulted in significant improvement in data collectors' performance. Only 4% of the total collected sample size was excluded, and 99 participants' data were analyzed. Conclusion: The present study adds information on maintaining research fidelity for remote data collection, where limited studies exist.


[FULL TEXT] [PDF]*
Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)
 

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed95    
    Printed0    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded6    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal