1. Guest, the two part 'News in Brief' for the week beginning 20th March 2023 is here.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Welcome! To read the Core Purpose and Values of our forum, click here.
    Dismiss Notice

Feedback on underperformance in patients with CFS: The impact on subsequent neuropsychological test performance, 2018, Roor, Knoop et al

Discussion in 'Psychosomatic research - ME/CFS and Long Covid' started by Andy, Nov 2, 2018.

  1. Andy

    Andy Committee Member

    Hampshire, UK
    My interpretation: "If we tell people how they should have answered then they answer more correctly the second time around", or have I misunderstood something here?

    Open access at https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/23279095.2018.1519509
    MEMarge, Mithriel, Skycloud and 9 others like this.
  2. Esther12

    Esther12 Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    I think that the Amsterdam Short-Term Memory test is used to see if people are exaggerating memory problems, so this seems quite an odd study to me.
    MEMarge, Cheshire, Woolie and 3 others like this.
  3. rvallee

    rvallee Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Seems to be: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9071640.

    At least he's making his contempt quite clear. I wonder how he'll fare once his bullshit is exposed. Having built a career on nonsense can't be good for anyone. If only it mattered what impact it has on the patients though...
  4. Woolie

    Woolie Senior Member

    Its amazing what you can get published in this area. It would never occur to me to submit this "study" for publication, because there's a flaw that undermines the entire thing: the feedback group repeated the tests one month later, whereas the non feedback group waited six months before re-testing.

    Obviously, this is a major flaw, because the first group would benefit from practice effects, whereas the second would not.

    I love how they try to make it sound like that major flaw can be overlooked, because it wasn't their fault! Sorry, but science doesn't care whose fault it was. :banghead:
  5. Hutan

    Hutan Moderator Staff Member

    Aotearoa New Zealand
    Incredible. I find it very hard to believe that anyone could think this study was worth publishing.
    MEMarge, andypants, rvallee and 6 others like this.
  6. Cheshire

    Cheshire Moderator Staff Member

    There seriously is something wrong with psychology, which, for the most part, has nothing to do with science.
    But here, it is so obvious, I just can't believe it. It's not flaws anymore, it needs to be called what it is, it's f* fraud! And the way research in psychology is organised allows it.

    @Woolie @Brian Hughes How is this possible?
    MEMarge, andypants, Hutan and 4 others like this.
  7. strategist

    strategist Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Once again, the Science For ME peer review almost immediately spots a fatal flaw.
    MEMarge, andypants, Hutan and 5 others like this.
  8. strategist

    strategist Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Also the implications here could be ugly: the test is designed to detect malingering; what kind of narratives would such a discrepancy support?
  9. Trish

    Trish Moderator Staff Member

    The researchers have made a conscious choice to interpret the results in the way that implies pwME don't try hard enough and can do better if they try.
    In making this completely unjustified interpretation, the main thing they are doing is publishing for all to see, their preconceptions and prejudices about pwME.
    MEMarge, andypants, Hutan and 6 others like this.
  10. Sean

    Sean Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Is this deliberate abuse of methodology, or just sheer ignorance and incompetence?

    Regardless, how blatant does it have to get before the rest of medical science steps in and removes these arse clowns from the game?
  11. NelliePledge

    NelliePledge Moderator Staff Member

    UK West Midlands
    Sounds just about on the level of the shopping bag study :wtf:
    MEMarge, andypants, Hutan and 4 others like this.

Share This Page