![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 17 to 41 of 152. Go back in thread:
Posted by Phillipa on December 2, 2006, at 22:45:07
In reply to Re: more research here, posted by SatinDoll on December 2, 2006, at 19:23:05
But how do you know if the healthy people are really mentally healthy? A degree or title doesn't guarantee a thing. Heah maybe pdocs should give out guarantees on the meds they prescribe or the advise? Love Phillipa brainstorming with a sick brain
Posted by Daisym on December 3, 2006, at 1:42:08
In reply to Re: more research here » SatinDoll, posted by Phillipa on December 2, 2006, at 22:45:07
It would be interesting to incorporate some of the new nuerobiology findings linking journaling and integration and think about how a board such as Babble contributes to left brain/right brain narratives.
Of course, those attracted here are far more likely to be writers in the first place.
Posted by madeline on December 3, 2006, at 7:49:36
In reply to more research here, posted by Dr. Bob on December 1, 2006, at 13:16:52
Lately, the psychobabble board has been fascinating me.
It appears to be an enriched population of folks that are resistant to drug therapy.
Not only that, I am really interested in what factors cause people to post there rather than discuss med problems, questions, concerns with their pdocs or other physicians.
Is it distrust of their docs?
Is it the fact that it is anonymous?
Is it that psychobabble is more available than their docs?
Is it that their docs won't tell them things about their drugs? Are they too afraid to ask?
Are certain people with specific diagnosis more likely to post there?Etc...
Granted it is a skewed, self-reporting population, but it might be a source for some hypothesis generating data.
Maddie
ps. If you do this, I want to be an author. ;)
Posted by SatinDoll on December 3, 2006, at 15:34:35
In reply to Re: more research here » SatinDoll, posted by Phillipa on December 2, 2006, at 22:45:07
> But how do you know if the healthy people are really mentally healthy? A degree or title doesn't guarantee a thing. Heah maybe pdocs should give out guarantees on the meds they prescribe or the advise? Love Phillipa brainstorming with a sick brain
Hi Phillipa,
Most people are mentally healthy and there are ways they live their life that contribute to a help keep mentally healthy. Healthy people still encounter problems, but the way they deal with them, and the way they prevent them in the first place, is one way to keep healthy. Good mental health isn't a label someone gives you, it is living life to the fullest in many ways which gives you personal satisfaction. You can still have a disorder and still have good mental health. There are several others, but right now I have to get back to my school work. Having good mental health is being happy mostly about who you are and your life. Life gives you satisfaction, living life feels good, there are things to do to improve your mental health.
Posted by zazenduckie on December 3, 2006, at 16:56:25
In reply to Re: more research here » Phillipa, posted by SatinDoll on December 3, 2006, at 15:34:35
I think it would be interesting to see how people define their disorders or illnesses-psychological, biological ,combination,neither etc.
And to see if those definitions became more similiar as a group as time went on.
And to measure other things like level of optimism etc. level of participation, measures of depression or anxiety.
I wonder if the group is becoming more and more homogenous, or more diverse or neither.
Do people who begin further from the norm here tend to leave early or do they tend to grow more like the group or neither?
Is the group as a whole changing?
As far as measuring these things I think a multiple choice quiz rating all these factors could be set up like the quiz before registration.
It could force people to fill out the rating scales once each month before being allowed to continue posting. that would guarantee more participation. At the same time anyone could opt out of the research there at that time and still go on to participate in the board.After 18 months or so tot up the numbers ,make some graphs and post it on a board and let all the participants make clever suggestions about interpretation.
I think research by a group would have to be rather simple more like a little organized group introspection.
Who says the age of the scientific amateur is gone?
I do hope you remember your problems last time with complaints from the participants and questions about consent etc. If you used some form of measurements rather than quotes as you did last time maybe people wouldn't feel as exposed. Are you asking for the board to research itself as a way of avoiding getting permission from the research board at your university? Does the APA invite contributions from amateurs?? That seems awfully broadminded of them. Is the P psychology or psychiatry?
I assume your planning to get money to bring all your co-presenters to the convention with you?
Your friend
zazenduckie
Posted by Honore on December 5, 2006, at 13:41:47
In reply to Re: more research here, posted by LlurpsieBlossom on December 2, 2006, at 14:46:39
Is the babble-o-meter a valid instrument of psychological testing?
I haven't checked the babble-o-meter. What type of psychological or other test is it, and what is its validity?
Honore
Posted by gardenergirl on December 5, 2006, at 15:09:48
In reply to Re: more research here, posted by Honore on December 5, 2006, at 13:41:47
There are four measures on the Babbleometer. Personally, I just use the CES-D, but the others are interesting, too. Here is a very brief sketch of the tests based on a quick internet search (no time to evaluate the sources, sorry):
CES-D This is a measure of symptoms of Depression that was designed by the Center for Epidemiologic Studies
http://www.assessments.com/catalog/CES_D.htm
From that site:
The Center for Epidemiological Studies-Depression Scale (CES-D) is a 20-item instrument that was developed by the National Institute of Mental
Health to detect major or clinical depression in adolescents and adults.
The CES-D has 4 separate factors:
* Depressive affect
* Somatic symptoms
* Positive affect
* Interpersonal relations
The questions are easy to answer and cover most of the areas included in the diagnostic criteria for depression. It has been used in urban and rural populations, and in cross-cultural studies of depression. Studies using the CES-D indicate that it has very good internal consistency, acceptable test-retest stability, and construct validity.SF-36 The 36-Item Short Form is a measure of health-related quality of life.
http://www.sf-36.org/tools/sf36.shtml (too much to pare down, sorry)SRRS: The Social Readjustment Rating Scale is a measure of the stress (social readjustment) expected from events in your life.
http://chipts.ucla.edu/assessment/Assessment_Instruments/Assessment_files_new/assess_srrs.htm or tiny url: http://tinyurl.com/g69k4
References from this site:
* Holmes, T.H. & Rahe, R.H. (1967). The social readjustment rating scale. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 11, 213-218.
* Horowitz, M., Schaefer, C., Hiroto, D., Wilner, N., and Levin, B. (1977). Life Event Questionnaires for Measuring Presumptive Stress. Psychosomatic Medicine 39(6): 413-431.
(Anectodotally, I've seen this measure used a lot and have used it myself. Can't speak to the vaildity, as I tend to use it as a way of beginning the dialog about stress and health versus to obtain a standardized score.)MOS-SSS the Medical Outcomes Study Social Support Survey is a measure of social support.
http://www.dfhcc.harvard.edu/?id=1281
From this site:
"Psychometric Stats (reliability, validity)
High convergent and discriminant validity of items. Fairly stable test-retest reliability over a one-year interval. All 4 subscales have alphas >.91.
Citations for referencing validity and reliability
Sherbourne CD, Stewart AL. The MOS social support survey. Social Science and Medicine, 1991; 32(6): 705-514. "hth,
gg
Posted by Honore on December 6, 2006, at 10:11:51
In reply to Babbleometer » Honore, posted by gardenergirl on December 5, 2006, at 15:09:48
Thanks for that information, gg.
Honore
Posted by Dr. Bob on December 8, 2006, at 3:58:28
In reply to Re: more research here, posted by zazenduckie on December 3, 2006, at 16:56:25
Hi, everyone,
What an interesting variety of ideas! Here's one way to organize them:
1. Group dynamics
> all the different people and the way they get on
> The interaction of personalities, the way likes and dislikes arise, the way people express difficult feelings, the formation of factions2a. Surveys
> how people define their disorders or illnesses-psychological, biological, combination, neither etc.
> left brain/right brain narratives
> level of optimism etc. level of participation, measures of depression or anxiety
> number of symptoms/level of functioning
> the quality of medical advice
> what factors cause people to post here rather than discuss med problems with their pdocs or other physicians2b. Correlations
> how standardized measures of mental health relate to posting behavior, and self-reported accounts of current treatment
2c. Differences between boards
> any survey results
> post-length, posters per week, thread-length2d. Differences over time
> if measures become more similar as time went on, if the group becomes more homogenous or more diverse or neither
> if people who begin further from the norm tend to leave early or grow more like the group or neither
> if the group as a whole is changing3. Outcomes
> learn what healthy people do to maintain their health, try out the new ideas and report back to how they helped
> or even just report on how reading/posting helpsWhat do you think? Any other ideas?
In selecting a project, issues to consider will be (1) how a study would actually be done (procedures, measures, etc.) and (2) what the significance of the results would be...
> ps. If you do this, I want to be an author. ;)
If we do something, we'll need to track who does what so everyone gets credit for what they do. :-)
Bob
Posted by zazenduckie on December 8, 2006, at 8:07:24
In reply to Re: more research here, posted by zazenduckie on December 3, 2006, at 16:56:25
> I do hope you remember your problems last time with complaints from the participants and questions about consent etc. If you used some form of measurements rather than quotes as you did last time maybe people wouldn't feel as exposed. Are you asking for the board to research itself as a way of avoiding getting permission from the research board at your university? Does the APA invite contributions from amateurs?? That seems awfully broadminded of them. Is the P psychology or psychiatry?
>
> I assume your planning to get money to bring all your co-presenters to the convention with you?
>
>
>
> Your friend
>
> zazenduckie
>
>
Posted by zazenduckie on December 8, 2006, at 11:55:16
In reply to Re: one way to organize the ideas, posted by Dr. Bob on December 8, 2006, at 3:58:28
Did you notice that you totally ignored all the suggestions that we study the blocking system?
Thought this was going to be poster generated research.
There seemed to be interest among posters.
Let's be objective and impartial here.
Please rework your list to include these suggestions too.
Hi, everyone,
>
> What an interesting variety of ideas! Here's one way to organize them:
>
> 1. Group dynamics
>
> > all the different people and the way they get on
> > The interaction of personalities, the way likes and dislikes arise, the way people express difficult feelings, the formation of factions
>
> 2a. Surveys
>
> > how people define their disorders or illnesses-psychological, biological, combination, neither etc.
> > left brain/right brain narratives
> > level of optimism etc. level of participation, measures of depression or anxiety
> > number of symptoms/level of functioning
> > the quality of medical advice
> > what factors cause people to post here rather than discuss med problems with their pdocs or other physicians
>
> 2b. Correlations
>
> > how standardized measures of mental health relate to posting behavior, and self-reported accounts of current treatment
>
> 2c. Differences between boards
>
> > any survey results
> > post-length, posters per week, thread-length
>
> 2d. Differences over time
>
> > if measures become more similar as time went on, if the group becomes more homogenous or more diverse or neither
> > if people who begin further from the norm tend to leave early or grow more like the group or neither
> > if the group as a whole is changing
>
> 3. Outcomes
>
> > learn what healthy people do to maintain their health, try out the new ideas and report back to how they helped
> > or even just report on how reading/posting helps
>
> What do you think? Any other ideas?
>
> In selecting a project, issues to consider will be (1) how a study would actually be done (procedures, measures, etc.) and (2) what the significance of the results would be...
>
> > ps. If you do this, I want to be an author. ;)
>
> If we do something, we'll need to track who does what so everyone gets credit for what they do. :-)
>
> Bob
Posted by sunnydays on December 8, 2006, at 13:20:23
In reply to You OMITTED all the suggestions to study blocking! » Dr. Bob, posted by zazenduckie on December 8, 2006, at 11:55:16
While I think studying blocking would be interesting, I'm not sure if Dr. Bob was saying this would be completely poster-generated research. After all, he should have final say in the topic if it's his name and professional reputation being associated with it, I think. Also, he would probably end up doing a majority of the work in terms of writing any findings or organizing a presentation just because of how hard it is given group dynamics in any group to get something big like this accomplished in any reasonable amount of time without someone acting as a leader and taking on a lot of the work.
And after all, it is Dr. Bob's site. I suppose he can ignore whatever he wants...
sunnydays
Posted by muffled on December 8, 2006, at 13:26:02
In reply to You OMITTED all the suggestions to study blocking! » Dr. Bob, posted by zazenduckie on December 8, 2006, at 11:55:16
LOL!
You gotta admit Zaz has a point there Bob!
Was there a reason you chose not to add blocking?
I can understand if there is.
Just wondered what you might say.....
Thanks,
Muffled
Posted by Dr. Bob on December 9, 2006, at 0:59:12
In reply to You OMITTED all the suggestions to study blocking! » Dr. Bob, posted by zazenduckie on December 8, 2006, at 11:55:16
> Did you notice that you totally ignored all the suggestions that we study the blocking system?
Oops, I had that in there, I guess the server ate it. :-)
4. Administration
> the blocking system
> other aspectsSorry about that,
Bob
Posted by Dr. Bob on December 13, 2006, at 2:37:42
In reply to Re: one way to organize the ideas, posted by Dr. Bob on December 8, 2006, at 3:58:28
Posted by capricorn on December 14, 2006, at 19:33:39
In reply to more research here, posted by Dr. Bob on December 1, 2006, at 13:16:52
> Hi, everyone,
>
> Research has been done here before, but it's always been my idea. What about a more democratic project?
>
> Is there anything you'd like to study here? We could work together on that, we'd learn something ourselves, and it might be something we could present at the APA annual meeting in May 2008 in Washington, DC, while we're there for our annual birthday party.
>
> Let me know what you think...
>
> Bob
Block duration and suicide levels
Posted by Dr. Bob on December 14, 2006, at 21:25:03
In reply to Re: more research here, posted by capricorn on December 14, 2006, at 19:33:39
> Block duration and suicide levels
Thanks, do you have anything specific in mind?
Bob
Posted by capricorn on December 15, 2006, at 19:36:41
In reply to Re: more research here » capricorn, posted by Dr. Bob on December 14, 2006, at 21:25:03
> > Block duration and suicide levels
>
> Thanks, do you have anything specific in mind?
>
> Bob
It would be interesting to see what effects differing lengths of block duration have on the individual re
suicidal ideation and other negative mental health factors.
Most blocks are for breaching subjective technicalities re how things are expected to be phrased rather than based on any sound moral reasoning and it must hurt and no doubt confuse already vulnerable people to be punished when for the most part they have not done anything wrong.
Posted by muffled on December 15, 2006, at 21:58:47
In reply to Re: more research here » Dr. Bob, posted by capricorn on December 15, 2006, at 19:36:41
> > > Block duration and suicide levels
> >
> > Thanks, do you have anything specific in mind?
> >
> > Bob
>
>
> It would be interesting to see what effects differing lengths of block duration have on the individual re
> suicidal ideation and other negative mental health factors.**Like self injury to punish themselves for being bad.
> Most blocks are for breaching subjective technicalities re how things are expected to be phrased rather than based on any sound moral reasoning and it must hurt and no doubt confuse already vulnerable people to be punished when for the most part they have not done anything wrong.
**Hurts real bad.
But I think there's less of it.
>
>
>
Posted by Dr. Bob on December 17, 2006, at 2:22:07
In reply to Re: more research here, posted by muffled on December 15, 2006, at 21:58:47
> Hurts real bad.
> But I think there's less of it.I'm sorry it hurts, but glad there's less of it.
I'd like to give people some more time to make suggestions, then to start trying to narrow down the options...
Bob
Posted by zazenduckie on December 17, 2006, at 9:23:57
In reply to Re: more research here, posted by Dr. Bob on December 17, 2006, at 2:22:07
http://www.geog.le.ac.uk/orm/site/home.htm
This is a great simple introduction to online research.
It has a nice section on ethics and consent etc.
Good Luck
Posted by zazenduckie on December 17, 2006, at 9:39:58
In reply to Re:how to conduct online research, posted by zazenduckie on December 17, 2006, at 9:23:57
Having been PBCed twice on my first day back for reasons I do not understand, I would like to clarify that this post was not a direct reply to Bob. I was not suggesting he needed an online guide to research nor that anyone else did. I just thought it was well done if someone wanted an idea of how to carry out his/her idea for research. I mentioned ethics and consent as an example. I did not mean to accuse or put down anyone. It also has sections on methods etc.
I'm not a huge fan of the social sciences and I don't want to participate but I thought it might be fun for some of you.Your friend
zazenduckie
> http://www.geog.le.ac.uk/orm/site/home.htm
>
> This is a great simple introduction to online research.
>
> It has a nice section on ethics and consent etc.
>
> Good Luck
>
>
Posted by muffled on December 17, 2006, at 14:20:25
In reply to clarification of previous post, posted by zazenduckie on December 17, 2006, at 9:39:58
thanks :)
Muffled
Posted by LlurpsieBlossom on January 7, 2007, at 7:30:03
In reply to Re: more research here, posted by Dr. Bob on December 17, 2006, at 2:22:07
thanks Zazenduckie,
Im glad to know where you stand, and thats a good link.I dont want to change psychobabble, I only want to suggest research.
1) an analysis of posting frequency on the admin board vs. the supportive boards. hypothesis- when things get heated (i.e. more frequent posts) on the admin board, the frequency of posts on the supportive boards decreases.
2) Why do people post on psychobabble- hypothesis that there are distinct communities of psychobabblers, i.e. those who post to provide information, but rarely seek information. those that post to feel socially engaged and connected with others. those that post to provide emotional support. those that post who seek emotional support. those that post who seek treatment advice. those that post who want to engage in an esoteric intellectual dialog. etc
Id be interested to see how babblers see their own role on the site at any given time, and how they perceive their role changing. who they feel are their closest companions, and how their perception of belonging to the psychobabble community changes as they first start posting, and as they post more rarely. who are the long term babblers, and what are their motivations. are there patterns?
-lurp
Posted by Dr. Bob on January 12, 2007, at 2:09:25
In reply to Re: more research here, posted by LlurpsieBlossom on January 7, 2007, at 7:30:03
> I'd like to give people some more time to make suggestions, then to start trying to narrow down the options...
OK, let's see if we can decide on a direction. Here are the proposals we have so far. Which would you all be willing to work on?
1. Group dynamics
> a. all the different people and the way they get on
> b. the interaction of personalities, the way likes and dislikes arise, the way people express difficult feelings, the formation of factions2. Surveys
> a. how people define their disorders or illnesses-psychological, biological, combination, neither etc.
> b. left brain/right brain narratives
> c. level of optimism etc. level of participation, measures of depression or anxiety
> d. number of symptoms/level of functioning
> e. the quality of medical advice
> f. what factors cause people to post here rather than discuss med problems with their pdocs or other physicians
> g. why people post on psychobabble
> h. how babblers see their role on the site, who they feel are their closest companions3. Correlations
> a. how standardized measures of mental health relate to posting behavior, and self-reported accounts of current treatment
4. Differences between boards
> a. any survey results
> b. post-length, posters per week, thread-length5. Differences over time
> a. if measures become more similar as time went on, if the group becomes more homogenous or more diverse or neither
> b. if people who begin further from the norm tend to leave early or grow more like the group or neither
> c. if the group as a whole is changing6. Outcomes
> a. learn what healthy people do to maintain their health, try out the new ideas and report back to how they helped
> b. or even just report on how reading/posting helps7. Administration
> a. the blocking system
> b. other aspectsThanks,
Bob
Go forward in thread:
Psycho-Babble Administration | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.