Nursing /Clinical science
What do clinical researchers do
First, let us look at the empirical aspects of the science. What do clinical
researchers do? What methods do they use and how do they control for
confounds? Secondly, let us take a look at the application of the science to
real world practice. What types of reliability and validity should clinical
assessment tools display and what are the pro’s and con’s of structured
interviews verses unstructured interviews and of projective tests verses
standardized tests? What is the purpose of clinical diagnosis?
The flu, a broken leg, cancer, depression, anxiety, schizophrenia….They’ve
all got something in common. Sometimes, we forget that just like a broken leg,
having abnormal bouts of depression, anxiety, etcetera are medical issues that
need to be addressed. As with more observable medical research, psychological
abnormalities also requires clinical research studies to determine different
way to combat the issues or determine the most likely causes for certain
issues. In these studies, researchers are able to establish different concepts
that allow them to test the validity and reliability of their work for future
use on an array of people. During clinical interviews, these tested methods
are put to use to establish clinical diagnoses to help providers care for
their patients and clients in a useful manner.
Clinical researchers conduct studies and trials for new medications, theories,
and applications. The scientific method plays a large role in this particular
career field (of every variation). Researchers regularly go through a similar
process of the “scientific method” which begins by asking a question related
to the topic they wish to run a trial on. Once a question has been asked the
researchers will then accomplish a literature review of sorts to increase
their knowledge of the former results related to the subject. Utilizing this
research, an education hypothesis should be made. A clear set of dependent and
independent variables should be established along with a process to test the
concept/item they wish to test. Often times, this testing will need to be
approved by a particular board associated to the field of study. Of course,
once the process has been approved, the researchers will move on with testing.
Using statistics, observations, and other types of information the researchers
will then analyse the data and draw a conclusion based on the study they
designed (Comer, 2014)
In real world applications, tests and treatments must be used in a sense that
allows them to be reliable and valid in the circumstance. Reliability is
graded by the ability to test and retest a certain item and score relatively
similar results each time. The two tests should generally be taken within a
short time frame (within a couple of weeks or months of each other, rather
than years). Validity, on the other hand, is a bit more complex. Validity can
take a couple of forms: face validity, concurrent validity, and predictive
validity. Face validity is a sort of logic test; does the item we are using
logically appear to fit the scenario it’s being associated to? Predictive
validity helps to predict future behaviours in relation to the situation.
Finally, concurrent validity compares two (or more) items to see if those
items with similar issues result in a similar solution using with the
treatment chosen. (Comer, 2014)
When determining the use of certain applications in a real world scenario,
it’s important to decide whether or not to begin the program with a structured
or unstructured interview of the patient/ client. Unfortunately, with
interviews as a whole, the validity and reliability can be called into
question based on the potential biases of the interviewer or the misdirection
of the interviewee. Unstructured interviews allow the patient/client to
discuss things they feel most comfortable with and what they think may be
causing their issue. The problem with a lack of structure is a potential
misdirection or avoidance of uncomfortable topics, making many question the
reliability of the interview yet again. Structured interviews are slightly
more reliable in a sense that the questions asked could be re-asked with the
likeliness of gather the same answer. Structured interviews may also bring
issues to light that were not considered by the interviewee for a variety of
reasons. Again, as with the unstructured interview, the structured discussion
could be led by a biased interviewer resulting in skewed results or mislead by
an uncomfortable interviewee. (Comer, 2014)
The utilization of all the above (clinical research, reliability/validity, and
interviews) are to determine a clinical diagnosis for issues perceived in an
individual. A clear and reliable diagnosis is the first step to recovery of
the mind or body. Understanding the underlying issues, whether biological,
psychological, emotional, or whatever is what allows medical professionals to
pursue a road to recovery that’s been proven to work in similar situations
through trials and testing.
