[研究] CST要素與範例

**20190826修改，移除他人研究表格**

Reference 1研究之優點：

1. 可從Reference 1 中統整出CST之通用要素
2. Reference 1有提供CST納入學校課程規劃之參考

Reference 1 研究不足之處：

1. Reference 1課程設計源自於牙醫教育，可能無法當作未來課程規劃之通則
2. Reference 1之訓練模式非以病人為中心的設計 (person-centered models)
3. 缺乏詳細之介入模式建議 [可參考 reference 2]
4. 缺乏CST實證評估工具之建議

Reference: 

1. Ayn, C., et al. (2017). "Determining Recommendations for Improvement of Communication Skills Training in Dental Education: A Scoping Review." J Dent Educ 81(4): 479-488.
2. Alder, J., et al. (2007). "Communication skills training in obstetrics and gynaecology: whom should we train? A randomized controlled trial." Arch Gynecol Obstet 276(6): 605-612.

[紀錄] 「義大計劃書」修改之學習心得

1.      學習如何有架構的去修改計畫書 [呼應八大核心之閱讀]

Ÿ  在評論內容及大綱前，宜先了解主題及目的。

Ÿ  「主題」擬定需明確、簡潔且新穎。

Ÿ  「摘要」為整個計畫之濃縮，強調計畫之核心與賣點。

Ÿ  是否掌握「寫作原則」，如：一個段落一個主題、檢視重複性及連貫性。

Ÿ  反思「辭彙」對於概念解釋之適切性，如層面/面向。

Ÿ  反思「辭彙」的增減是否有影響語意，如：以「資料庫」直接取代「大量、變項多」

2.      了解計畫書撰寫架構 [呼應八大核心之寫作]

3.      學習時間管理之重要性 [呼應八大核心之時間管理]

Ÿ  善用文書功能，如「搜尋」內容辭彙統一性

Ÿ  對於不瞭解的概念宜上網搜尋，如機器學習

4.      修改意見回饋之重要性 [呼應八大核心之團隊經營與溝通]

Ÿ  對於不理解之概念釐清，如：交叉驗證

Ÿ  釐清修改所建議之詞彙或順序，是否不違背原要表達之語意

5.      對熟悉之計畫書格式仍要反覆檢視內容。

6.      了解掌握八大研究核心之重要性

Ÿ  閱讀、溝通、研究方向、研究設計、統計、寫作、時間管理、團隊經營

MMQ投稿期刊挑選

投稿期刊挑選方式為使用Pubmed搜尋相關主題發表篇數

  Step 1.搜尋策略：「對象」+「心理計量特性」，看挑選常見之投稿期刊5-8個。

  Step 2.搜尋策略：「期刊」+「對象」+「心理計量特性」

  Step 3. 查詢期刊2018 Impact factor做為參考指標

結果：

依據「期刊」+「對象」+「心理計量特性」搜尋結果及Impact factor之綜合考量，自選擬投稿期刊順序排列為：

1. International Psychogeriatrics
2. International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry 
3. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology

搜尋統整表格詳下：

Journal	Number (J+P) (no limitation of year)	Number (J+P) (5 year)	2018 Impact factor	J+P+S
1.   International Psychogeriatrics	162	24	2.478	+(35)
2.   International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry	148	16	3.141	+(17)
3.   Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology	240	51	2.226	+ (18)
4.   Aging clinical and experimental research	56	25	2.331	+ (16)
5.   Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society	79	16	3.098	+(5)
6.   Aging & Mental Health	98	25	2.956	--
7.   Geriatrics & Gerontology International	51	25	2.118	--

Note. J: Journal; P: psychometric properties; S: subject

psychometric properties	subject
Reliabi*[ti] OR Valid* [ti] OR psychometric [ti] OR propertie* [ti] OR Minimal Detectable Change [ti])	Memory impairment [tiab] OR older adult* [tiab]

評估工具介紹之寫作結構

評估工具介紹之寫作結構 (依序撰寫)

o 發展之評估目的

o 原始量表之總題數

o 原始量表之因素結構

o 原始量表之次量表介紹

o 原始量表之評分方式(Likert scale)

o 原始量表之分數範圍

o 原始量表之分數代表意義

o 原始量表之測驗花費時間

o 其他版本(如簡易版)

o 語言

o 適用樣本

MMQ驗證結果統整表格

20190628自我紀錄：
在本篇文章撰寫過程中發現以下問題：
1.對於心理計量特性概念不清楚且容易混淆，因此常使用不適切的辭彙去解釋結果或應用。
2.段落缺乏連貫性。
3.英文寫作時，在使用保留及肯定辭彙的時機拿捏不恰當。

因此，統整該表格，待與老師或其他博後進一步釐清。

心理計量特性概念及MMQ驗證結果統整

目的	The purpose of this study was to estimate the test–retest reliability, random measurement error, and systematic error of the Multifactorial Memory Questionnaire (MMQ) in older adults with subjective memory impairment (SMI).
驗證方法	再測信度 (Test-retest reliability)	隨機測量誤差 (random measurement error)	Heteroscedasticity Bland-Altman plot (systematic trend)	系統性誤差 (systematic error)
統計指標	ICC (value)	MDC MDC%	Person’s r (value) Bland-Altman plot (visual -distributed)	Ÿ Effect size (value) Ÿ Paired-t-test (value) Ÿ Bland-Altman plot (visual)
判斷標準	Ÿ Group-level (>0.7) Ÿ Individual-level (<0.9)	Ÿ MDC (threshold) Ÿ MDC% < 30%	Ÿ Person’s r <0.3 (no heteroscedasticity)	Ÿ ES=差異程度small, medium, large Ÿ Paired-t-test (no significant, no systematic error)
研究結果	ICC 0.72 to 0.77	MDC-C =13.2 (32.5%) MDC-A = 18.4 (31.1%) MDC-S = 16.9 (78.2)	Person’s r <0.3	MMQ-C, d = 0.34 MMQ-C, mean diff. = 3.14
解釋	Ÿ the MMQ has sufficient reliability for use in research settings (e.g., the difference in mean scores between the experimental and control group) but not for use in clinical settings (e.g., for assessing individual participants)	Ÿ Changes scores between two measurements greater than the MDC95 should be considered true change beyond random measurement error. Ÿ The MDC95 can be used as a threshold to determine whether the individual participant differed significantly across two measurements of subjective memory performance. Ÿ the MDC95 % of the MMQ were >30%, indicating a substantial amount of random measurement error.	Ÿ the Pearson’s r of the 3 MMQ subscales were less than 0.3, implying that no existence of heteroscedasticity. In other words, the absolute of mean difference and the mean appear no trend of increasing or decreasing simultaneously between two measurements. Ÿ Bland-Altman plots enable users to assess visually the pattern of the data scatter (i.e., systematic trend) between the two measurements for the 3 MMQ subscales. The Bland-Altman plots showed that the mean difference of the 3 MMQ subscales were normal distributed within the tolerance of consistency.
應用	Ÿ These results support previous findings that the MMQ is reliable between two measurements in research settings.	Ÿ Results suggest a relatively large difference between two measurements of the MMQ is required to be considered as true change. Ÿ Therefore, clinicians and researchers should be cautious about the interpretation of the MMQ in older adults with SMI.	Ÿ Thus, these results supported that the mean difference of the MMQ is not depend on the difference subjective memory performance of individuals between the two measurements. Therefore, users could use a fixed MDC95 value as the threshold to determine whether a difference between two measurements is true regardless of the difference subjective memory performance of individuals.