Abstract
A “successful” medical research grant proposal can be defined in two ways: (1) one to which reviewers assign a high enough priority score to attract funding to do the project, (2) one that results in study conclusions that benefit clinical decision making for the population sampled and/or moves research in that field a little forward. This discussion focuses on the issue of assessment and its effect on the success of a proposal. The quality of data (reliability, validity, sensitivity, level) is briefly reviewed. Questions are addressed related to how much data is too little, and how much data is too much, which data are necessary and/or desirable, and which might actually undermine the goals of the study, concluding with a few comments on issues related to data acquisition, cleaning, storing, monitoring and access. The connection between the data one intends to collect and the wisdom one hopes to gain from that data is fragile. Thus it is essential to structure proposals that will pass muster with review committees and that will contribute both to clinical decision making and scientific progress.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Dunn, G. (1989). Design and Analysis of Reliability Studies. New York: Oxford University Press.
Gibbons, J. D. (1993). Nonparametric Statistics: An Introduction. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Kraemer, H. (1992). How many raters? Toward the most reliable diagnostic consensus. Statistics in Medicine, 11, 317–331.
Kraemer, H. C. (1991). To increase power without increasing sample size. Psychopharmacology Bulletin, Special Feature: ACNP Proceedings, 27(3), 217–224.
Kraemer, H. C., Giese-Davis, J., Yutsis, M., Neri, E., O’Hara, R., Gallagher-Thompson, D., Taylor, C. B., & Spiegel, D. (2006.). Decisions to optimized reliability of daytime cortisol slopes in an older population. American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, 14(4), 325–333.
Kraemer, H. C., & Thiemann, S. A. (1989). A strategy to use “soft” data effectively in randomized clinical trials. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 57, 148–154.
Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33, 159–174.
Perkins, D. O., Wyatt, R. J., & Bartko, J. J. (2000). Penny-wise and pound-foolish: the impact of measurement error on sample size requirements in clinical trials. Biological Psychiatry, 47, 762–766.
Scott, D. T., Spiker, D., Kraemer, H. C., Bauer, C. R., Bryant, D. M., Constantine, N. A., & Tyson, J. E. (Eds.). (1997). Possible Confounding Issues Concerning the Primary Child Outcomes. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Tukey, J. W. (1979). Methodology, and the statistician’s responsibility for BOTH accuracy AND relevance. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 74, 786–793.
West, S. G., Duan, N., Pequegnat, W., Gaist, P., Des Jarlais, D.C. et al. (2008). Alternatives to the RCT. American Journal of Public Health, 98(8), 1359–1366.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2010 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Kraemer, H.C. (2010). Issues in Assessment in Research Proposals. In: Pequegnat, W., Stover, E., Boyce, C. (eds) How to Write a Successful Research Grant Application. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-1454-5_15
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-1454-5_15
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Boston, MA
Print ISBN: 978-1-4419-1453-8
Online ISBN: 978-1-4419-1454-5
eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)