FINAL PROJECT: Abstract and Reader's Reponse > Lab Manual for Stories Subsection of Children's Memory Scale
L, this document is in the weeds of how science is done. I think you will look back on this experience and find the time so formative and even wisdom-building.
Be sure to exercise your option to simply turn into me, if this is better for real-life conditions.
"clearer" way -- perhaps a transparent way to capture group consensus on updating the protocol?
May 12, 2019 |
MbS
MbS
ABSTRACT: CMS (Children’s Memory Scale) is among one of three standardized memory batteries for children. The test was formed for diagnostic purposes and is composed of six different memory tests. The stories subunit, one of the six memory batteries, tests declarative memory. The child listens to two stories and is asked to repeat the story immediately and an hour after. The researcher giving the memory task codes the test as the child recalls the story. The Neurocognitive Developmental Lab (NCDL) at the University of Maryland extended the stories subunit by adding a week delay and coding the document a second time by listening to the audio recording. We found major differences between the researcher’s points and the coder two’s points. Because this is basic research and not being used for diagnostic purposes, we tweaked the CMS stories subunit protocol to focus on objectivity and reliability. Every time a child said a word outside of the protocol, we voted and recorded the word in a document. Additionally, we continued to norm and check the reliability of our coders overtime. Lastly, we found that the coding of thematic units was extremely subjective. Therefore, I offered a clearer way to think about whether a child should receive the points based off of several examples our team voted on. In addition to ways of ensuring the best data, this document gives the entire protocol at the NCDL lab. The CMS stories subunit used to have large coding problems; however, with this new protocol, I trust we will see a great improvement in reliability and objectivity of the data.
WC = 263
READER’S PROFILE: I imagine a skeptical reader to question the NCDL lab changing some of the protocol of the stories subunit.
READER’S RESPONSE: I see the major problems associated with the coding of this task. I understand that the lab is prioritizing reliability and therefore, I understand why there were changes to the original protocol. The new protocol is clear and exhausts ways to properly code the data.