Journal of Trial and Error最新文献

{"title":"The GLORIA adherence subproject: problems and randomization mistakes","authors":"L. Hartman, M. Kok, E. Molenaar, E. Griep, J. Laar, J. M. Woerkom, C. Allaart, H. Raterman, Y. Ruiterman, M. Voshaar, J. Redol, R. Pinto, L. Klausch, W. Lems, M. Boers","doi":"10.36850/e6","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.36850/e6","url":null,"abstract":"Medication adherence, which is the extent to which patients take their medication as prescribed, is essential in treating chronic inflammatory diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Therefore, we nested a subproject in the two-year multicenter Glucocorticoid Low-dose Outcome in Rheumatoid Arthritis (GLORIA) trial to add a low-dose prednisolone (5 mg/day) or placebo to the standard care in older people (≥65 years) with RA. Adherence was measured with an electronic monitoring cap that recorded bottle openings in all patients. In the subproject, we performed an adherence intervention with an advanced cap that could communicate with an application on the smart device via Bluetooth. We randomized patients with a smart device to receive or not to receive adherence reminders on the smart device for three months. Multiple problems emerged that precluded an answer to the research question: sample size (overly optimistic estimates of older patients with a smart device), logistic issues (availability of smartcaps, data extraction), randomization and treatment allocation errors (despite training of personnel), and low quality of the data in the intervention group (hardware failure, discovered too late because data was read in batches). For future trials planning to include a subproject, we recommend keeping it simple, starting with a field test before the actual study starts, and monitoring data from the beginning of the study.","PeriodicalId":275817,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Trial and Error","volume":"15 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-10-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"125459564","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Real-effort survey designs: Open-ended questions to overcome the challenge of measuring behavior in surveys","authors":"Carolin Fischer","doi":"10.36850/e5","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.36850/e5","url":null,"abstract":"Based on data triangulation, open-ended questions can be used to overcome a typical problem with data collection using surveys: Human behavior can only be captured as stated or intended, but not as real behavior. In this study on knowledge sharing in the workplace, a quantitative measure of behavioral intention was accompanied by such a qualitative, open-ended measure of behavior. The latter was used as a proxy for real instead of stated behavior. This item was coded according to the effort a participant made in answering. It is assumed that the greater the effort put into answering the open-ended question, the more likely it is that the described behavior will be performed in reality. A factorial experimental design was used to analyze the effect of rewards on employees’ knowledge-sharing behavior. As a within-subject design was used, participants had to answer three open-ended questions referring to different vignettes. A strong order effect appeared, leading to longer answers on average for the first vignette (baseline) compared to subsequent vignettes, independent of treatment. Therefore, this approach to operationalizing behavior in surveys might not be useful in within-subject designs. However, it can be used in between-subject comparisons when participants are asked to answer to a single vignette.Keywords: survey design, survey experiment, real-effort design, human behavior, order effect","PeriodicalId":275817,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Trial and Error","volume":"10 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-09-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"133303213","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Rewilding Cognition: Complex Dynamics in Open Experimental Systems","authors":"Wendy Ross, F. Vallée‐Tourangeau","doi":"10.36850/e4","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.36850/e4","url":null,"abstract":"Insight problems are sometimes designed to encourage an incorrect and misleading interpretation that veils a simple answer. The socks problem is one such problem: Given black socks and brown socks in a drawer mixed in a ratio of four to five, how many socks will you have to take out to make sure that you have a pair of the same color? The ratio information is misleading since, with only two colors, pulling three socks will guarantee a matching pair. Recently, offered a distinction between first- and second-order problem-solving: The former proceeds with and through a physical model of the problem, while the latter proceeds in the absence of such interactions with the world, in other words on the basis of mental processes alone. Vallée-Tourangeau and March also proposed a thought experiment, suggesting that the ratio information in the socks problem might be quickly abandoned in a first-order environment, that is, one where participants observe the results of drawing socks out of a bag rather than imagining themselves doing so. We tested this prediction by randomly allocating participants to a low- (second-order) or high- (first-order) interactivity condition. Marginally more participants announced the correct answer within a 5-minute period in the high than in the low condition, although the difference was not significant. Detailed analysis of the video recording revealed the challenges of operationalizing a second-order condition, as participants engaged in dialogical interactions with the experimenter. In addition, the manner in which the high-interactivity condition was designed appeared to encourage the physical reification of the misleading ratio, thus anchoring that information more firmly rather than defusing it through interactivity. We close the paper with some reflections on wide, or systemic, cognition in experimental research on creative problem-solving.","PeriodicalId":275817,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Trial and Error","volume":"8 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-08-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"130135234","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"An Introduction to Complementary Explanation","authors":"Joeri van Hugten","doi":"10.31235/osf.io/tvcb4","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.31235/osf.io/tvcb4","url":null,"abstract":"Complementary explanation is an approach to falsify more theories. This counteracts the current bias toward supporting theories.","PeriodicalId":275817,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Trial and Error","volume":"10 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-04-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"129365386","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"The Complexity of Joint Regeneration: How an Advanced Implant could Fail by Its In Vivo Proven Bone Component","authors":"P. Diloksumpan, F. Abinzano, M. de Ruijter, A. Mensinga, S. Plomp, I. Khan, H. Brommer, I. Smit, Miguel Dias Castilho, P. R. van Weeren, J. Malda, R. Levato","doi":"10.36850/E3","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.36850/E3","url":null,"abstract":"Articular cartilage damage is a major challenge in healthcare due to the lack of long-term repair options. There are several promising regenerative implant-based approaches for the treatment, but the fixation of the implant remains a significant challenge. This study evaluated the potential for repair of an osteochondral implant produced through a novel combined bioprinting-based chondral-bone integration, with and without cells, in an equine model. Implants consisted of a melt electrowritten polycaprolactone (PCL) framework for the chondral compartment, which was firmly integrated with a bone anchor. The bone anchor was produced by extrusion-based printing of a low-temperature setting bioceramic material that had been proven to be effective for osteo-regeneration in an orthotopic, non-load bearing and non-articular site in the same species in an earlier in vivo study. Articular cartilage-derived progenitor cells were seeded into the PCL framework and cultured for 28 days in vitro in the presence of bone morphogenetic protein-9 (BMP-9), resulting in the formation of abundant extracellular matrix rich in glycosaminoglycans (GAGs) and type II collagen. The constructs were implanted in the stifle joints of Shetland ponies with cell-free scaffolds as controls. Clinical signs were monitored, and progression of healing was observed non-invasively through radiographic examinations and quantitative gait analysis. Biochemical and histological analyses 6 months after implantation revealed minimal deposition of GAGs and type II collagen in the chondral compartment of the defect site for both types of implants. Quantitative micro-computed tomography showed collapse of the bone anchor with low volume of mineralized neo-bone formation in both groups. Histology confirmed that the PCL framework within the chondral compartment was still present. It was concluded that the collapse of the osteal anchor, resulting in loss of the mechanical support of the chondral compartment, strongly affected overall outcome, precluding evaluation of the influence of BMP-9 stimulated cells on in vivo cartilage regeneration.","PeriodicalId":275817,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Trial and Error","volume":"5 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-03-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"127412215","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Peer Review of \"Trial and Error (-Related Negativity): An Odyssey of Integrating Different Experimental Paradigms","authors":"Ilona Domen, K. Groot","doi":"10.36850/e2.pr1","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.36850/e2.pr1","url":null,"abstract":"Pain can be considered as a signal of “bodily error”: Errors – discrepancies between actual and optimal/targeted state – can put organisms at danger and activate behavioral defensive systems. If the error relates to the body, pain is the warning signal that motivates protective action such as avoidance behavior to safeguard our body’s integrity. Hence, pain shares the functionality of errors. On the neural level, an important error processing component is the error-related negativity (ERN), a negative deflection in the electroencephalographic (EEG) signal generated primarily in the anterior cingulate cortex within 100 ms after error commission. Despite compelling evidence that the ERN plays an important role in the development of various psychopathologies and is implicated in learning and adjustment of behavior, its relation to pain-related avoidance has not yet been examined. Based on findings from anxiety research, it seems conceivable that individuals with elevated ERN amplitudes are more prone to engage in pain-related avoidance behavior, which may, under certain conditions, be a risk factor for developing chronic pain. Consequently, this new line of research promises to contribute to our understanding of human pain. As in most novel research areas, a first crucial step for integrating the scientific fields of ERN and pain is developing a paradigm suited to address the needs from both fields. The present manuscript presents the development and piloting of an experimental task measuring both ERN and avoidance behavior in response to painful mistakes, as well as the challenges encountered herein. A total of 12 participants underwent one of six different task versions. We describe in detail each of these versions, including their results, shortcomings, our solutions, and subsequent steps. Finally, we provide some advice for researchers aiming at developing novel paradigms.","PeriodicalId":275817,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Trial and Error","volume":"36 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-12-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"128366882","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Peer Review of \"Burst Beliefs - Methodological Problems in the Balloon Analogue Risk Task and Implications for its Use\"","authors":"M. Young, Sihua Xu","doi":"10.36850/mr1.pr1","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.36850/mr1.pr1","url":null,"abstract":"Studies in the field of psychology often employ (computerised) behavioural tasks, aimed at mimicking real-world situations that elicit certain actions in participants. Such tasks are for example used to study risk propensity, a trait-like tendency towards taking or avoiding risk. One of the most popular tasks for gauging risk propensity is the Balloon Analogue Risk Task (BART; Lejuez et al., 2002), which has been shown to relate well to self-reported risk-taking and to real-world risk behaviours. However, despite its popularity and qualities, the BART has several methodological shortcomings, most of which have been reported before, but none of which are widely known. In the present paper, four such problems are explained and elaborated on: a lack of clarity as to whether decisions are characterised by uncertainty or risk; censoring of observations; confounding of risk and expected value; and poor decomposability into adaptive and maladaptive risk behaviour. Furthermore, for every problem, a range of possible solutions is discussed, which overall can be divided into three categories: using a different, more informative outcome index than the standard average pump score; modifying one or more task elements; or using a different task, either an alternative risk-taking task (sequential or otherwise), or a custom-made instrument. It is important to make use of these solutions, as applying the BART without accounting for its shortcomings may lead to interpretational problems, including false positive and false negative results. Depending on the research aims of a given study, certain shortcomings are more pressing than others, indicating the (type of) solutions most needed. By combining solutions and openly discussing shortcomings, researchers may be able to modify the BART in such a way that it can operationalise risk propensity without substantial methodological problems.","PeriodicalId":275817,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Trial and Error","volume":"328 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-12-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"133940546","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Peer Review of \"Reflection on 'Trial and Error (-Related Negativity)'","authors":"Stefan Gaillard, S. Devine","doi":"10.36850/r2.pr1","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.36850/r2.pr1","url":null,"abstract":"This paper is about error on three levels. First of all, it deals with research into the ERN, error-related negativity. The ERN is a negative deflection in the EEG signal, which tends to occur within 100 milliseconds of making an error. The authors hypothesize that physical pain can be considered as a bodily signal that a type of error has been committed: there is a \"discrepancy between the actual and optimal/targeted state\", as the authors put it (p.1). This raises the question whether the ERN is also associated with pain and the avoidance of pain, and if so how. More specifically the authors want to know whether people with an elevated ERN are more prone to avoidance behaviour, which in turn can lead to chronic pain. I am an historian of psychology with philosophical interests and have no expertise in clinical neuropsychology, so I will not comment on this hypothesis. But the paper also deals with error in two other ways, which I do feel able to reflect on. The authors describe their attempts to develop an experimental paradigm for the study of the role of the ERN in pain avoidance. In these attempts they make errors which they then try to correct in a further attempt, six task versions in total. This is the second way this paper deals with errors -those of the experimenters themselves. But there is a third level too: it is crucial for the experimental task to induce the participant to make the right number of errors -not too many, not too few. The second and third aspects are obviously related: the errors of the experimenters concern, among others, the number of errors the participants make. The authors describe their challenge as an interdisciplinary one: they had to combine elements of neurophysiology (ERN) with clinical psychology (pain avoidance). Specifically: they had to somehow induce an ERN in the participants, and elicit and measure some type of avoidance behaviour at the same time. Moreover, to determine what each participant’s average ERN is, they needed at least six ERN measures per participant, and thus a minimum of six errors. The errors, finally, had to be \"inhibition errors\", not errors due to lack of knowledge or skill. It wasn’t clear to me why this was important, or what an inhibition error is in the first place, but this is no doubt due to my own lack of knowledge in this field. All in all, the specifications of the task were narrow and demanding: not any type of error would do (only inhibition errors); the errors had to produce a proper ERN; a minimum of six was needed; the participants had to be aware of their error (otherwise they would not show avoidance behaviour); and of course there had to be pain associated with the errors, but not so much pain that the ethics committee would reject the pilot study, or the subjects would refuse to participate. What followed was a kind of dance, or rather a series of dances, with the experimenters leading the participants, successively trying different choreographies in an attempt to","PeriodicalId":275817,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Trial and Error","volume":"36 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-12-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"125097582","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Global Giving","authors":"R. Bekkers","doi":"10.36850/rga2","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.36850/rga2","url":null,"abstract":"Why do citizens in some countries take more responsibility for the well-being of others than in other countries? This project seeks to understand the genesis of prosociality, investigating its biological foundations, the influence of cultural traditions, and effects of political, economic and legal structure. The dominant theory in economics views philanthropy as a solution to social illnesses that the market and the state are not solving, a view complementary to political science theory on preferences for government provision. Sociologists focus on social norms emerging from religious traditions. Cultural evolutionary theory highlights the instrumental value of trust. Still other theories have suggested a role for natural selection of genes. However, these theories have not been tested stringently nor simultaneously. Also the project includes a very important factor largely ignored thus far: political, legal and economic institutions also affect the level of giving as well as who gives to which causes. Therefore, the objectives of Global Giving are (1) to map country differences in the size and nature of philanthropy across the world; (2) to develop and test multidisciplinary theories explaining these differences; (3) to facilitate international collaboration across disciplinary boundaries in research on philanthropy. The research draws upon 200 surveys recently harmonized by the PI and on new data on philanthropy to be collected among large samples in 145 countries across all continents. Collaboration with international networks of academics safeguards the validity of the questionnaires and experiments. Appropriate multilevel regression models will be used, the lack of which caused biases in previous research. An integrated understanding of philanthropy is useful not only for theory development, but also for government policy makers and practitioners in nonprofit organizations seeking to mobilize philanthropic contributions and make them more effective. The application in practice is ensured through collaboration with a large network of practitioners.","PeriodicalId":275817,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Trial and Error","volume":"93 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-12-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"128836168","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Peer Review of \"Experiment and Fail\"","authors":"S. Devine, Stefan Gaillard","doi":"10.36850/r1.pr1","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.36850/r1.pr1","url":null,"abstract":"Introduction The paper ‘Alcohol cues and aggressive thoughts’ reports a failed attempt at reproducing two experiments. The massive shortcomings of the reported reproduction are obvious. For a moment I was tempted to think that the authors, in the form of a standard psychological paper, were presenting a philosophical critique of this type of experiments. In my comment I will try to formulate such a critique in a more straightforward manner. I will first give a brief and plain description of what happened in the experiment and why it was done, according to the authors. Then I will say a few things about the complexity of producing and reproducing experiments in general, followed by a section on the problems of the specific type of experiments of which this one is a specimen: priming studies, mostly found in the subdiscipline of social psychology and since almost a decade the subject of a vigorous debate among methodologists, philosophers of science, priming researchers, in scientific journals, but also in newspapers, magazines, blogs and on Twitter. I will end with assessing the possibilities and the limits of doing experiments in the human sciences: what can we learn from experiments on alcohol cues if we want to tackle physical, mental and social harm, attributed to the consumption of alcohol?","PeriodicalId":275817,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Trial and Error","volume":"33 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-12-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"124459370","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}