Finding Time, Finding Evidence and Making Decisions: The Challenges of Evidence-Based Practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
No AccessPerspectives on Neurophysiology and Neurogenic Speech and Language DisordersArticle1 Apr 2007Finding Time, Finding Evidence and Making Decisions: The Challenges of Evidence-Based Practice Tammy Hopper Tammy Hopper University of AlbertaEdmonton, Alberta Canada Google Scholar More articles by this author https://doi.org/10.1044/nnsld17.1.11 SectionsAboutFull TextPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationTrack Citations ShareFacebookTwitterLinked In References Dickerson, S. S., Sackett, K., Jones, J. M., & Brewer, C. (2001). Guidelines for evaluating tools for clinical decision making.Nurse Educator, 26, 215–220. Google Scholar Finn, P. (2006, June 13). Bias and blinding: Self-fulfilling prophecies and intentional ignorance.The ASHA Leader, 11(8), 16–17, 22. Google Scholar Greenhalgh, T. (1997). How to read a paper: The basics of evidence-based medicine. London: British Medical Journal Press. Google Scholar G. Guyatt, & D. Rennie (Eds.). (2002). Users’ guide to the medical literature: A manual for evidence-based clinical practice. Chicago: American Medical Association Press. Google Scholar Law, M. (2002). Introduction to evidence-based practice.In M. Law (Ed.), Evidence-based rehabilitation: A guide to practice (pp. 1–12). Thoro-fare, NJ: SLACK. Google Scholar McKibbon, A. (1999). Evidence-based principles and practice. Hamilton, ON: B.C. Decker. Google Scholar Miller, R. G., Rosenberg, J. A., Gelinas, D. F., Mitsumoto, H., Newman, D., Sufit, R., et al. (1999). Practice parameter: The care of the patient with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (an evidence-based review) [Report of the Quality Standards Subcommittee of the American Academy of Neurology]. Neurology, 52, 1311–1323. Google Scholar Nelson, P., & Goffman, L. (2006, May 2). Primer on research: Developing a research question.The ASHA Leader, 11(6), 15, 26. Google Scholar Oller, D. K. (2006, Nov. 7). Primer on research: Interpretation of correlation. The ASHA Leader, 11(15), 24–26. Google Scholar Pollock, N., & Rochon, S. (2002). Becoming an evidence-based practitioner.In M. Law (Ed.), Evidence-based rehabilitation: A guide to practice (pp. 31–46). Thorofare, NJ: SLACK. Google Scholar Porzsolt, F., Ohletz, A., Gardner, D., Ruatti, H., Meier, H., Scholtz-Gorton, N., & Schrott, L. (2003). Evidence-based decision making— The 6-step approach..British Medical Journal, November/December, A-11-A-12. Google Scholar Rappolt, S., & Tassone, M. (2002). How rehabilitation therapists gather, evaluate, and implement new knowledge..The Journal of Continuing Education in the Health Professions, 22, 170–180. Google Scholar Rycroft-Malone, J., Seers, K., Titchen, A., Harvey, G., Kitson, A., & McCormack, B. (2004). What counts as evidence in evidence-based practice?.Journal of Advanced Nursing, 47(1), 81–90. Google Scholar Sackett, D. L, Rosenberg, W. M. C.Gray, J. A., Haynes, R. B., & Richardson, W. S. (1996). Evidence based medicine: What it is and what it isn’t..British Medical Journal, 312(13), 71–72. Google Scholar Sackett, D. L., Straus, S. E., Richardson, W. S., Rosenberg, W., & Haynes, R. B. (2000). Evidence-based medicine: How to practice and teach EBM. London, UK: Churchill Livingstone. Google Scholar Schuele, C. M., & Justice, L. M. (2006, Aug. 15). The importance of effect sizes in the interpretation of research. The ASHA Leader, 11(10), 14–15, 26–27. Google Scholar Scott-Findlay, S., & Pollock, C. (2004). Evidence, research, knowledge: A call for conceptual clarity..World Views on Evidence-Based Nursing, 1(2), 92–97. Google Scholar Thompson, C., McCaughan, D., Cullum, N., Sheldon,T. A., Mulhall, A., & Thompson, D. R. (2001). Research information in nurses’ clinical decision-making: what is useful?.Journal of Advanced Nursing, 36(3), 376–388. Google Scholar World Health Organization. (2001). International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF). Geneva, Switzerland: Author. Google Scholar Zipoli, R. P., & Kennedy, M. (2005). Evidence-based practice among speech-language pathologists: Attitudes, utilization, and barriers..American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 14(3), 208–220. LinkGoogle Scholar Additional Resources FiguresReferencesRelatedDetailsCited ByAmerican Journal of Speech-Language Pathology29:2 (688-704)8 May 2020What Does Evidence-Based Practice Mean to You? A Follow-Up Study Examining School-Based Speech-Language Pathologists' Perspectives on Evidence-Based PracticeKatrina Fulcher-Rood, Anny Castilla-Earls and Jeff Higginbotham Volume 17Issue 1April 2007Pages: 11-14 Get Permissions Add to your Mendeley library History Published in issue: Apr 1, 2007 Metrics Downloaded 32 times Topicsasha-topicsasha-article-typesasha-sigsCopyright & Permissions© 2007 American Speech-Language-Hearing AssociationPDF DownloadLoading ...
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.407 | 0.567 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.019 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.090 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.048 | 0.068 |
| Open science | 0.016 | 0.032 |
| Research integrity | 0.026 | 0.053 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.004 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".