Teaching Direct Practice Techniques for Work With Elders With Alzheimer's Disease: A Simulated Group Experience

Kane, Michael N.

doi:10.1080/716100370

Cited by 18 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, we draw upon similar methodologies used in other domains, including the use of standardized and simulated patient interactions in medical education (Kruijver et al 2001; Dotger, Dotger and Maher 2010; Helitzer et al 2011; Young and Parviainen 2014); group simulations in medical and nursing education (Moyer 2016; Stroben et al 2016) and in clinical psychology (Crosbie-Burnett and Eisen 1992; Romano 1998; Romano and Sullivan 2000; Kane 2003); and the use of simulated juries or ‘mock trials’ in legal studies (Foss 1976; McQuiston-Surrett and Saks 2009). The literature shows that the outcomes of simulated and constructed juries closely align with those of real juries.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

‘Your comments are meaner than your score’: score calibration talk influences intra- and inter-panel variability during scientific grant peer review

Pier

Raclaw

Kaatz

et al. 2017

Research Evaluation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In scientific grant peer review, groups of expert scientists meet to engage in the collaborative decision-making task of evaluating and scoring grant applications. Prior research on grant peer review has established that inter-reviewer reliability is typically poor. In the current study, experienced reviewers for the National Institutes of Health (NIH) were recruited to participate in one of four constructed peer review panel meetings. Each panel discussed and scored the same pool of recently reviewed NIH grant applications. We examined the degree of intra-panel variability in panels' scores of the applications before versus after collaborative discussion, and the degree of inter-panel variability. We also analyzed videotapes of reviewers' interactions for instances of one particular form of discourse-Score Calibration Talk-as one factor influencing the variability we observe. Results suggest that although reviewers within a single panel agree more following collaborative discussion, different panels agree less after discussion, and Score Calibration Talk plays a pivotal role in scoring variability during peer review. We discuss implications of this variability for the scientific peer review process. HHS Public AccessAuthor manuscript Res Eval. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2018 January 01.Published in final edited form as:Res Eval. 2017 January ; 26(1): 1-14. doi:10.1093/reseval/rvw025. Author Manuscript Author ManuscriptAuthor Manuscript Author ManuscriptKeywords peer review; discourse analysis; decision making; collaboration As the primary means by which scientists secure funding for their research programs, grant peer review is a keystone of scientific research. The largest funding agency for biomedical, behavioral, and clinical research in the USA, the National Institutes of Health (NIH), spends more than 80% of its $30.3 billion annual budget on funding research grants evaluated via peer review (NIH 2016). As part of the mechanism by which this money is allocated to scientists, collaborative peer review panels of expert scientists (referred to as 'study sections' at NIH) convene to evaluate grant applications and assign scores that inform later funding decisions by NIH governance. Thus, deepening our understanding of how peer review ostensibly identifies the most promising, innovative research is crucial for the scientific community writ large. The present study builds upon existing work evaluating the reliability of peer review by examining how the discourse practices of reviewers during study section meetings may contribute to low reliability in peer review outcomes.The NIH peer review process is structured around study sections that engender distributed expertise (Brown et al. 1993), as reviewers evaluate applications based on their particular domain(s) of expertise but then share their specialized knowledge with others who have related but distinct expertise. The very structure of study sections thus facilitates what Brown and colleagues (1993) identify as mutual appropriation among grou...

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

‘Your comments are meaner than your score’: score calibration talk influences intra- and inter-panel variability during scientific grant peer review

Pier

Raclaw

Kaatz

et al. 2017

Research Evaluation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The findings from this study have implications for hospice and gerontological social workers and healthcare professionals who work with individuals with end-stage dementia and their caregivers. The social reality is that more individuals will be developing Alzheimer's disease and related disorders, suggesting a need for more professionals who are trained to work with these patients (Kane, 2003). While the beliefs of the hospice social workers coincided with the value base of the profession -specifically, finding dignity and worth in clients as seen in the theme of preserving personhood -they also portrayed a glimpse of therapeutic nihilism (Dunkelman & Dressel, 1994) and a pattern of neutral to negative beliefs about individuals with end-stage dementia and their caregivers.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…As a result, it is not unusual for professionals to feel challenged and frustrated in their work with dementia patients given their inability to verbally participate in their dying process and the assistance received from the professionals (Spera & Wehrle, 1994;Thompson, 2002). The research that has been conducted on healthcare professionals and dementia care has identified gaps in dementia-related knowledge, which impacts practice (Allen et al, 2005;Kane, 2003;Kane, Hamlin, & Hawkins, 2004;Meuser, Boise, & Morris, 2004;Pucci et al, 2003;Turner et al, 2004). While this research is not specific to end-stage dementia care, it has ramifications for how professionals assess and treat patients during the end-stages of the disease.…”

Section: Healthcare Professionals and Dementia Carementioning

confidence: 99%

Caring for individuals with end-stage dementia at the end of life

Sanders

Swails

2009

Dementia

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Little is known about the beliefs and practices of social workers who work with individuals with end-stage dementia. With more individuals reaching the end stages of the disease, it is crucial to determine how professionals view their work with end-stage dementia patients and their caregivers. During this ethnographic study, the beliefs and practices about dementia care of 13 hospice social workers from the United States were documented for 10 months through interviews, in-field observations, and chart reviews. It was determined that although hospice social workers use a wealth of practice skills with individuals with end-stage dementia and their caregivers and strive to enhance the personhood of the patients, they also possess a neutral to negative view of practice with this population and see their role as limited and ambiguous compared to how they view their work with cognitively intact patients. This study has implications for how hospice social workers and other healthcare professionals provide end-of-life care for patients and families who are dealing with dementia and the types of training that should be implemented in hospice agencies to strengthen end-stage dementia care.

show abstract

“…Individuals with dementia are routinely dehumanized (Ryvicker, 2009;Doyle and Rubinstein, 2013), as they are often perceived as having lost autonomy, dignity, and control (Illiffe et al, 2003), or as being "zombies" (Behuniak, 2011). Additionally, attitudes toward older adults without dementia are sometimes characterized by beliefs that all older people have dementia, or will develop it (Kane, 2003). Despite these negative perceptions, very little empirical work has examined perceptions of humanness of people with dementia and older adults and strategies to improve these perceptions.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Contact and perspective taking improve humanness standards and perceptions of humanness of older adults and people with dementia: a cross-sectional survey study

Miron

McFadden

Hermus

et al. 2017

Int. Psychogeriatr.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Teaching Direct Practice Techniques for Work With Elders With Alzheimer's Disease: A Simulated Group Experience

Cited by 18 publications

References 28 publications

‘Your comments are meaner than your score’: score calibration talk influences intra- and inter-panel variability during scientific grant peer review

‘Your comments are meaner than your score’: score calibration talk influences intra- and inter-panel variability during scientific grant peer review

Caring for individuals with end-stage dementia at the end of life

Contact and perspective taking improve humanness standards and perceptions of humanness of older adults and people with dementia: a cross-sectional survey study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About