Why is there an ad for the World Association for Behaviour Analysis here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.66.238.51 ( talk) 03:31, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
Hi, I'm going to make a major rewrite of this article in the next 5 weeks. Please let me know if you have any concerns. Kguan10 ( talk) 21:22, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Template:Did you know nominations/Parent management training
There are claims made about treatment efficacy based on primary sources (see WP:PSTS and WP:MEDRS). I removed those claims from the lead, and tagged them in the body. What is this source?
It says it's a database, and when you click on it, the link goes to a password-protected database. That's not a complete citation. The impression is that the writer compiled data from a database, which would be original research.
I added PMIDs so our readers can link to abstracts of the citations; it would be helpful if PMIDs would be added to all citations.
I've removed several other primary-sourced sections. The remaining tagged text should not be available to our readers, as it is irresponsible to suggest treatment to our readers based on primary, unreviewed sources. I will wait 24 hours to see if someone replaces them with secondary sources. [1] SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 22:55, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
On the Practice-wise citations, then, we need article titles or something that looks more like an actual citation (date, author, title, accessdate, etc). As they stand now, they are just a link to a database without titles; what article does one look for in that database to cite specific text?
I did not delete any "other so-called original research"; I removed some text from the lead cited to primary sources, which is a different issue. What I questioned as original research is tagged in the article, needing full citations to the Practice-wise database of journal reports.
I corrected your link to the PDF (above) and it accurately summarizes the gist of WP:PSTS, WP:RS and WP:MEDRS. (If there is something in that summary that you believe allows the use of primary sources for specific text, please excerpt it here, so I can explain any confusion.) We don't use primary sources to draw conclusions; I saw nothing there that differs with guideline or policy on Wikipedia. See page 3 of the PDF you linked-- it's accurate. I added PMIDs on several of the primary sources you used so that you can click on the PMID, read the abstract, and see they are primary studies.
Also, what the representative told you is partially correct but there is more. Stringing together primary sources-- even if they are published in reputable peer-reviewed journals-- to draw a conclusion is original research. And any biomedical or health statement should be sourced to secondary reviews (what you referred to above as literature reviews and meta-analyses) not primary studies, even when those studies are published in reputable peer-reviewed journals. We need the conclusions to come from secondary review of primary sources.
If you have a question about any particular text I deleted, pls let me know so I can clarify, but if you step back through my edit summaries, you will see the reason for each edit. I am not assuming anyone has bad intentions; when I say irresponsible, I am talking about text and our readers (not anyone's intentions). We shouldn't leave text in the article that draws conclusions about treatments unless it is correctly sourced. Many readers may access the article daily! This is actually a very fine article overall (that fills a gap on Wikipedia-- in my writing on other articles, I have needed a link to parent management training), but we should get those remaining points cleared up quickly. Best regards, SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 03:06, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
I removed that text from the lead because a) it is uncited, b) it is vague, and c) it is unsupported by secondary references anywhere in the text. (The lead should summarize the body of the article.) What we actually have in the text of the body of the article uses primary sources:
If those primary sources can be replaced by secondary reviews, then we can readd something to the lead, which summarizes the text in the body of the article. But we should also clear up vagueness about just what behaviors were improved for each condition (that is, we shouldn't leave the impression that parent management training-- as effective as it is-- is going to diminish all of the symptoms of ADHD, for example. There is some vagueness in the article about specifically what measures of what behaviors are mentioned in sources).
Separately:
The "original research question?" (question mark is not an accusation, there is a clarification request for that source on this talk page) applies to the use of the PracticeWise database as a source. See discussion above. I did not remove the text because attached to it is a string of secondary sources. There is a problem, though, with the string of sources. Several of them are decades old; why are they used, and why does that statement require more than one source? We should reflect recent sources, and surely there are many supporting parent management training considering the strength of the recommendations reflected in this article.
On the "brand name" treatments, we should have a specific secondary source mention of those treatments this helps avoid having anyone add a pet treatment somewhere down the line (as an advert, for example), based on a primary source or we often see even self-cited in such cases.) Which secondary sources specifically recommend each of those "brand names"?
SandyGeorgia (
Talk)
12:47, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Kguan10, Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-30/Dispatches may be helpful in understanding how to look up Pubmed Identifiers (PMIDs) in PubMed and ways to help determine based on info in the Pubmed link for each article whether a specific source is a primary document. Adding PMIDs to articles makes it much easier to determine when correct sourcing is used. In many cases with the sources you used, in spite of missing PMIDs, it is obvious that the sources are secondary, for example, when the title mentions it is a literature review or a meta-analysis. But it's not always clear from the title if a source is secondary or primary, so adding PMIDs helps. (See also WP:PSTS, WP:RS, and WP:MEDRS for biomedical or health statements.)
Please have a careful look at some of the dates on the sources listed below: some of them are much too old for citing this text, considering the advances in studies of parent management training in the last 10 or 15 years (the studies at Yale wrt behaviors in children with
Tourette syndrome complicated by comorbid conditions are quite recent, for example, and I see no mention of them here.) Kazdin is 1997, Serketich is 1996, and Brightman is 1982, for example.
SandyGeorgia (
Talk)
12:57, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
I have just searched PUBMED and added at "Further reading" three very recent (2013) secondary reviews that could be well used to clear up the sourcing here, and to expand the text to better explain exactly what behaviors are looked at with each condition:
Per WP:MEDRS, we shouldn't really be citing articles to decades-old research-- even less so when we have three recent reviews. (I see Michelson was already used in the article-- I was typing Michaelson on search, and missed that.) SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 13:22, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
I now have full copies of the three (2013) reviews above, as well
So, that is five very recent secondary reviews. Once I'm done with the flu, I'll update the article to reflect all five (from these sources, it looks like we are over-emphasizing the Oregon model, but we do have good statements about efficacy of individual programs).
SandyGeorgia (
Talk)
15:02, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
The article lists Zwi 2012 as a source retrieved from the campbell collaboration:
but PubMed lists:
Is the date and other citation info correct in the article; are these referring to the same article? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 13:31, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
OK, I found this PDF, which is a 2012, first published in 2011, publication, same authors, different title, same DOI. So, it looks like this is meant to be the citation, with the advantage that we can link to the free full text: Kguan10, is that the intended citation? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 16:19, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
I've removed this text based on a sourcing concern. The cited source is not a review: it is a proposal to conduct a review. Has that review been published? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 14:54, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Adaptations of PMT have also been studied for children with pervasive developmental or autism spectrum disorders. In a randomized controlled trial of PMT for problem behavior associated with Asperger's syndrome, both a one-day workshop and a six-session individual format of PMT resulted in fewer problem behaviors and greater social interactions in the short-term. unreliable medical source? [11] Similarly promising results were found for a PMT-based approach for children with various forms of ASD, with improved child behavior and positive parenting. unreliable medical source? [12]
Some PMT treatments have also been applied to children with comorbid intellectual disability (ID; formerly known as mental retardation), with some support for their effectiveness. unreliable medical source? [13] unreliable medical source? [14] For example, a randomized controlled trial of young children with comorbid oppositional defiant disorder and intellectual disability showed that parent-child interactions and child disruptive behaviors improved in the treatment group relative to the control group. unreliable medical source? [15]
Per the discussion above, I have:
Based on the recent (last five years) full-text reviews and abstracts that are available, my impression is that the article is somewhat biased, and before it moves through the GA nomination process, some of the info in the more recent reviews should be added.
This text still needs attention:
We need third-party, independent secondary reviews endorsing these specific treatments; otherwise, we're just advertising. (It appears that the PMTO part is self-cited.)
And this text:
is outdated. The newer reviews (2013) deal with these topics. I do not have access to the full-text of all of the newer sources, so I haven't attempted an update, but from the abstracts of the 2013 reviews, it is apparent that this text can be updated. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 18:43, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
References
PMTO chapter
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Kazdin chapter
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Why is there an ad for the World Association for Behaviour Analysis here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.66.238.51 ( talk) 03:31, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
Hi, I'm going to make a major rewrite of this article in the next 5 weeks. Please let me know if you have any concerns. Kguan10 ( talk) 21:22, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Template:Did you know nominations/Parent management training
There are claims made about treatment efficacy based on primary sources (see WP:PSTS and WP:MEDRS). I removed those claims from the lead, and tagged them in the body. What is this source?
It says it's a database, and when you click on it, the link goes to a password-protected database. That's not a complete citation. The impression is that the writer compiled data from a database, which would be original research.
I added PMIDs so our readers can link to abstracts of the citations; it would be helpful if PMIDs would be added to all citations.
I've removed several other primary-sourced sections. The remaining tagged text should not be available to our readers, as it is irresponsible to suggest treatment to our readers based on primary, unreviewed sources. I will wait 24 hours to see if someone replaces them with secondary sources. [1] SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 22:55, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
On the Practice-wise citations, then, we need article titles or something that looks more like an actual citation (date, author, title, accessdate, etc). As they stand now, they are just a link to a database without titles; what article does one look for in that database to cite specific text?
I did not delete any "other so-called original research"; I removed some text from the lead cited to primary sources, which is a different issue. What I questioned as original research is tagged in the article, needing full citations to the Practice-wise database of journal reports.
I corrected your link to the PDF (above) and it accurately summarizes the gist of WP:PSTS, WP:RS and WP:MEDRS. (If there is something in that summary that you believe allows the use of primary sources for specific text, please excerpt it here, so I can explain any confusion.) We don't use primary sources to draw conclusions; I saw nothing there that differs with guideline or policy on Wikipedia. See page 3 of the PDF you linked-- it's accurate. I added PMIDs on several of the primary sources you used so that you can click on the PMID, read the abstract, and see they are primary studies.
Also, what the representative told you is partially correct but there is more. Stringing together primary sources-- even if they are published in reputable peer-reviewed journals-- to draw a conclusion is original research. And any biomedical or health statement should be sourced to secondary reviews (what you referred to above as literature reviews and meta-analyses) not primary studies, even when those studies are published in reputable peer-reviewed journals. We need the conclusions to come from secondary review of primary sources.
If you have a question about any particular text I deleted, pls let me know so I can clarify, but if you step back through my edit summaries, you will see the reason for each edit. I am not assuming anyone has bad intentions; when I say irresponsible, I am talking about text and our readers (not anyone's intentions). We shouldn't leave text in the article that draws conclusions about treatments unless it is correctly sourced. Many readers may access the article daily! This is actually a very fine article overall (that fills a gap on Wikipedia-- in my writing on other articles, I have needed a link to parent management training), but we should get those remaining points cleared up quickly. Best regards, SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 03:06, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
I removed that text from the lead because a) it is uncited, b) it is vague, and c) it is unsupported by secondary references anywhere in the text. (The lead should summarize the body of the article.) What we actually have in the text of the body of the article uses primary sources:
If those primary sources can be replaced by secondary reviews, then we can readd something to the lead, which summarizes the text in the body of the article. But we should also clear up vagueness about just what behaviors were improved for each condition (that is, we shouldn't leave the impression that parent management training-- as effective as it is-- is going to diminish all of the symptoms of ADHD, for example. There is some vagueness in the article about specifically what measures of what behaviors are mentioned in sources).
Separately:
The "original research question?" (question mark is not an accusation, there is a clarification request for that source on this talk page) applies to the use of the PracticeWise database as a source. See discussion above. I did not remove the text because attached to it is a string of secondary sources. There is a problem, though, with the string of sources. Several of them are decades old; why are they used, and why does that statement require more than one source? We should reflect recent sources, and surely there are many supporting parent management training considering the strength of the recommendations reflected in this article.
On the "brand name" treatments, we should have a specific secondary source mention of those treatments this helps avoid having anyone add a pet treatment somewhere down the line (as an advert, for example), based on a primary source or we often see even self-cited in such cases.) Which secondary sources specifically recommend each of those "brand names"?
SandyGeorgia (
Talk)
12:47, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Kguan10, Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-30/Dispatches may be helpful in understanding how to look up Pubmed Identifiers (PMIDs) in PubMed and ways to help determine based on info in the Pubmed link for each article whether a specific source is a primary document. Adding PMIDs to articles makes it much easier to determine when correct sourcing is used. In many cases with the sources you used, in spite of missing PMIDs, it is obvious that the sources are secondary, for example, when the title mentions it is a literature review or a meta-analysis. But it's not always clear from the title if a source is secondary or primary, so adding PMIDs helps. (See also WP:PSTS, WP:RS, and WP:MEDRS for biomedical or health statements.)
Please have a careful look at some of the dates on the sources listed below: some of them are much too old for citing this text, considering the advances in studies of parent management training in the last 10 or 15 years (the studies at Yale wrt behaviors in children with
Tourette syndrome complicated by comorbid conditions are quite recent, for example, and I see no mention of them here.) Kazdin is 1997, Serketich is 1996, and Brightman is 1982, for example.
SandyGeorgia (
Talk)
12:57, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
I have just searched PUBMED and added at "Further reading" three very recent (2013) secondary reviews that could be well used to clear up the sourcing here, and to expand the text to better explain exactly what behaviors are looked at with each condition:
Per WP:MEDRS, we shouldn't really be citing articles to decades-old research-- even less so when we have three recent reviews. (I see Michelson was already used in the article-- I was typing Michaelson on search, and missed that.) SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 13:22, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
I now have full copies of the three (2013) reviews above, as well
So, that is five very recent secondary reviews. Once I'm done with the flu, I'll update the article to reflect all five (from these sources, it looks like we are over-emphasizing the Oregon model, but we do have good statements about efficacy of individual programs).
SandyGeorgia (
Talk)
15:02, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
The article lists Zwi 2012 as a source retrieved from the campbell collaboration:
but PubMed lists:
Is the date and other citation info correct in the article; are these referring to the same article? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 13:31, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
OK, I found this PDF, which is a 2012, first published in 2011, publication, same authors, different title, same DOI. So, it looks like this is meant to be the citation, with the advantage that we can link to the free full text: Kguan10, is that the intended citation? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 16:19, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
I've removed this text based on a sourcing concern. The cited source is not a review: it is a proposal to conduct a review. Has that review been published? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 14:54, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Adaptations of PMT have also been studied for children with pervasive developmental or autism spectrum disorders. In a randomized controlled trial of PMT for problem behavior associated with Asperger's syndrome, both a one-day workshop and a six-session individual format of PMT resulted in fewer problem behaviors and greater social interactions in the short-term. unreliable medical source? [11] Similarly promising results were found for a PMT-based approach for children with various forms of ASD, with improved child behavior and positive parenting. unreliable medical source? [12]
Some PMT treatments have also been applied to children with comorbid intellectual disability (ID; formerly known as mental retardation), with some support for their effectiveness. unreliable medical source? [13] unreliable medical source? [14] For example, a randomized controlled trial of young children with comorbid oppositional defiant disorder and intellectual disability showed that parent-child interactions and child disruptive behaviors improved in the treatment group relative to the control group. unreliable medical source? [15]
Per the discussion above, I have:
Based on the recent (last five years) full-text reviews and abstracts that are available, my impression is that the article is somewhat biased, and before it moves through the GA nomination process, some of the info in the more recent reviews should be added.
This text still needs attention:
We need third-party, independent secondary reviews endorsing these specific treatments; otherwise, we're just advertising. (It appears that the PMTO part is self-cited.)
And this text:
is outdated. The newer reviews (2013) deal with these topics. I do not have access to the full-text of all of the newer sources, so I haven't attempted an update, but from the abstracts of the 2013 reviews, it is apparent that this text can be updated. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 18:43, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
References
PMTO chapter
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Kazdin chapter
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).