Return-Path: <nifl-ld@literacy.nifl.gov> Received: from literacy (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by literacy.nifl.gov (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id j2B1FjC28271; Thu, 10 Mar 2005 20:15:45 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2005 20:15:45 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <BE564CF5.5C39%varshna@grandecom.net> Errors-To: listowner@literacy.nifl.gov Reply-To: nifl-ld@literacy.nifl.gov Originator: nifl-ld@literacy.nifl.gov Sender: nifl-ld@literacy.nifl.gov Precedence: bulk From: Varshna Narumanchi-Jackson <varshna@grandecom.net> To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-ld@literacy.nifl.gov> Subject: [NIFL-LD:4626] RE: Spanish Screen - request for help X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Content-type: text/plain; Status: O Content-Length: 4040 Lines: 100 Nancie and Glenn, Thanks for the follow-up and feedback. Glenn, could you please be more specific about the parameters of your research project? What are the research questions you are testing? What protocols would you suggest programs follow? How would you want the data reported? Who gets the data, and how would it be analyzed? How many would constitute a sufficient sample size? Would the results be published... Sorry to be obnoxious, but I think more information at the front end would offer programs a better opportunity to evaluate the benefits of participation. Texas has a sizable and politically active Spanish-speaking population, so it will be necessary to weight the benefits against the risks of engaging participants without informed consent and without backing from a major research institution. Thanks, Varshna. on 3/10/05 5:18 PM, Nancie Payne at napayne@worldnet.att.net wrote: > Hi Glenn and all reading this message, > > Unless I read the information incorrectly I believe you must inform the > participants in a research project that they are being involved in a > research project and the type of project -- I believe it's called "Informed > Consent" and it is part of the required protocols under the code of ethics > and right to privacy process when involving human subjects. > > -----Original Message----- > From: nifl-ld@nifl.gov [mailto:nifl-ld@nifl.gov] On Behalf Of Glenn Young > Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2005 10:07 AM > To: Multiple recipients of list > Subject: [NIFL-LD:4621] RE: Spanish Screen - request for help > > Thanks for the question ... > > Since this would be anonymous ... There would be no issue for the program as > far as follow up ... Research such as this, is often conducted with no > implied follow-up or the participants ... Since the participants would not > know what this is about ... There should be no confusion ... They can be > told that this is just a survey being conducted on past education and other > history ... For data collection ... > > I think there should be NO statement in anyway to the participants that this > is a screen for learning disabilities or anything of the sort ... Since > many of them will not know what LD is, and this would cause confusion, and > also many may have a negative connotation of the term "disability" which > could get a lot of false negatives ... > > Also .. If we told them it was a LD screen, then, your right, they would > expect some kind of follow up ... Or want to know the results ... So that is > why, for this purpose ... Getting some "gross" numbers, we need to keep it > simple, and anonymous and with out participants knowing what it is ... > > > I hope this answers the question .. > > Glenn Young > 505 East Braddock Rd # 608 > Alexandria VA 22314 > 703-684-1750 > gyoungxlt@comcast.net > > > -----Original Message----- > From: nifl-ld@nifl.gov [mailto:nifl-ld@nifl.gov] On Behalf Of Varshna > Narumanchi-Jackson > Sent: Wednesday, March 09, 2005 8:02 PM > To: Multiple recipients of list > Subject: [NIFL-LD:4619] RE: Spanish Screen - request for help > > Glenn, > > Aren't you worried that such screening without appropriate follow-up might > be confusing or upsetting to participants? I would wonder why I am being > asked a bunch of questions if nothing comes of it. If I were to recommend > this idea to some program directors, what would be a safe response to the > question? > > Sincerely, Varshna. > > > on 3/9/05 10:34 AM, Glenn Young at gyoungxlt@comcast.net wrote: > >> The only thing that would be reported from the data >> collected is that the screen was administer to X number of >> persons, and that Y number of persons were found to have scores >> based on the screening design that indicated there could be LD. >> >> >> If there is actually a significant finding of those at risk for LD >> through this screen, it may stimulate additional research in this >> area. (And any report on the findings will be filled with caveats on the > whole issue.) > > >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon Oct 31 2005 - 09:49:45 EST