Agreed. The standard is not high enough... but it does seem to be improving, don't you think? There is more emphasis on research in pre-registration programmes here in the UK, which will hopefully equip future OTs with the skills and ethos required for good research. There are also more higher degree OTs now than ever before -- this should also hopefully feed into the quality of future research, as should the increasing availability of electronic literature databases on the internet. The newer OT models and frames of reference seem to have a significantly improved theoretical background compared to older ones. Hopeful signs? Mike Griffin http://www.otdirect.co.uk Dana Levinson wrote: > Mike, > > You pretty much hit the nail on the head. We need to be careful with simply > accepting things without real scrutiny...especially in clinical > documentation and published works (including frames of references). > > I've read several OT research and sometimes feel ashamed that my profession > could possibly publish such poor research. Over the past 15 years, I've read > a good share of OT research and can't even begin to express my > disappointment in the quality of research (of course, I do not mean all OT > research). I've run across too many published studies (one being too many) > that used incorrect statistical models, reported inconsistent data, and > generally used poor research methodology. To make it worse, newer research > base their reasoning on prior junk studies. > > How many of us have read OT research and accepted the conclusions by the > authors but really didn't understand the Results section? Just curious. A > raise of hands will suffice. > > Don't get me wrong. I love the profession. Unfortunately, I see too many of > my peers blindly accepting deeds to bridges without reading the fine print. > Let me point out that I'm guilty of not contributing to OT research myself > as my doctorate is in public health and have been spending more of my time > in that field lately. > > Dana > > >From: Mike <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >Subject: Re: Are OTs Survivors? > >Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 00:14:07 +0100 > > > >Well, it's certainly not impressive, is it? Are we the weakest link? I hope > >we're all a lot more careful > >when it comes to reading clinical documentation and research! > > > > > >Dana Levinson wrote: > > > > > I have received the spam email about Karen and the Survivor show from 4 > > > differents sources. This leads me to believe that the majority of votes > > > Karen received were from OTs who got the email. > > > > > > None of the sources I received the email from cared to even read through > >the > > > site to validate its purpose. > > > > > > Is our profession really this careless? > > > > > > Dana > > > > ******************** Unsubscribe by sending a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the message's body, put the following text: unsubscribe OTlist ------ OTnow messages are archived at: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected] (and) http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected] ********rC***********
