Comparing caregiver to infant/toddler scoresRe: Go To Meeting link Mon June 12
Ateac...@aol.com
If a caregiver discovers she or he is over responsive to sounds and the infant tends to scream a lot, they will better understand their own sympathetic "fight/flight/freeze reactions which then allows the clinician to discuss strategies to help not only the infant but also strategies for self-calming for the caregiver.
That sounds good. I have another meeting at 9:30 so I will get on your call little before 9:00 if I can.I also want to ask you what you had in mind for the interpretation of the comparison between the caregiver scores and infant/toddler scores. How do you hope clinicians will use this information? Understanding your goals for these scores will help me determine how to present the form development and basic analyses in the manual.Look forward to checking in with you all. Talk to you Monday.
John C. Williams, PhDLicensed Clinical PsychologistProject Director at WPS-- sent via mobile device
On Jun 5, 2017, at 4:29 PM, Ateachabout via SPM-2 Project Workspace <spm-2-proje...@googlegroups.com> wrote:--Hi John and SPM-2 authors,This discussion falls at a good time. I too was wondering as we had labeleda. The two Teen forms as Self and Informantb. The two Adult forms as Self and InformantI have reserved a Go To Meeting for Monday June 12. Cheryl and I had discussed this morning that I would send you all an email so we can move forward re discussing the case studies for the SPM-2 manual.Therefore, we (the authors) can begin the meeting as planned at 8 am Pacific. Then John can join us at 9 am or after to discuss the naming of the adult form. FYI John, the call will end at 10:30.All,Can you each please confirm if you will be able to attend, so we know who will be attending.See link below.Thanks,Diana_______________________________________________________________________SPM 2 Authors
Mon, Jun 12, 2017 8:00 AM - 10:30 AM PacificTo be clear, these are the times for our call:8-10:30 PDT (Cheryl)
8-10:30 MST (Diana))9-11:30 MDT (Diane)11-1:30 EDT (Heather-Tara)Please join my meeting from your computer, tablet or smartphone.
https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/140062653You can also dial in using your phone.
United States: +1 (571) 317-3122Access Code: 140-062-653First GoToMeeting? Try a test session: https://care.citrixonline.com/g2m/getreadyDiana A Henry, MS, OTR/L, FAOTA--
Now working on the SPM 2 "across the life span" including:
SPM-2 Infant & Toddler
SPM-2 Preschool
SPM-2 Child
SPM-2 Teen
SPM-2 Adult
SPM-2 Quick Tips
www.ateachabout.com
623.521.3646
Facebook: Henry Occupational TherapyIn a message dated 6/5/2017 1:21:18 P.M. US Mountain Standard Time, jwil...@wpspublish.com writes:--That’s an interesting idea, Diane. Why don’t we make the conference call for time that I can join in (9am Pacific or later) since this is an issue that has some parameters from the WPS that we will want to include in the development process.
John
From: spm-2-proje...@googlegroups.com [mailto:spm-2-proje...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Diane Parham
Sent: Monday, June 05, 2017 1:12 PM
To: spm-2-proje...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: naming the adult informant report
Hi John,
This sounds like an SPM author discussion topic -- so author buddies, let's plan a conference call.
I am following your reasoning, and I think it is a good idea to call the adult self-report form the "Self Form." I reflected a bit on the issue of the institutionalized adult or adolescent. I am assuming that some of these individuals may be able to fill out the Self Form, so it sounds like you are thinking about what to call a form that is filled out by another adult who lives with the person being evaluated. I wonder if maybe we are going to have to name these adult forms in relation to who it is, rather than environment. I'm thinking that "Self Form" would still work, as it is the person him/herself who is filling it out. The alternative form, if rated by spouse, roommate, or friend, could maybe be called the "Friend or Family Form." These are just my first immediate thoughts . . . to be discussed further.
Diane
L. Diane Parham, PhD, OTR/L, FAOTA
Professor
University of New Mexico
Occupational Therapy Graduate Program
MSC09 5240 - 1 University of New Mexico
Albuquerque, NM 87131-0001
From: spm-2-proje...@googlegroups.com <spm-2-proje...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of John Williams <jwil...@wpspublish.com>
Sent: Monday, June 5, 2017 1:09 PM
To: spm-2-proje...@googlegroups.com
Subject: naming the adult informant report
Hi group,
As I have begun pre-writing the technical chapters of the manual, it has occurred to me that we have not yet settled on a naming convention for the forms in the adult level. There are a few standard options that often go with self-report, such as “informant report,” “rated by others,” or simply “other report.” These assume that the self-report is called “Self-Report” and not simply “Self.” Although “self-report” would be the most standard, as you know the SPM forms are named according to their environment rather than by the rater. That is, whereas most tests have “Parent” and “Teacher” forms, the SPM has “Home” and “School” forms. As such, “Self” may seem to fit better with an environmental approach than “Self-Report,” which is rater driven This will help us also develop the exact title for the Adult form, rated by others. Note that there is no single environment that would always fit: that is, a “Home” form would be a misnomer when the person is living in an institutional setting. That said, Home would certainly make sense with all of the other levels: we would just have to make it clear that it can be used in other settings.
Would you all mind replying to this email with either general considerations on the naming model, or with specific names you think would fit?
Thank you !
John
John C. Williams, PhD
Senior Project Director
Licensed Clinical Psychologist
t 800.648.8857 or 424.201.8800
625 Alaska Avenue, Torrance, CA 90503
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "SPM-2 Project Workspace" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to spm-2-project-wor...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to spm-2-proje...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/spm-2-project-workspace.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "SPM-2 Project Workspace" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to spm-2-project-wor...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to spm-2-proje...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/spm-2-project-workspace.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "SPM-2 Project Workspace" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to spm-2-project-wor...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to spm-2-proje...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/spm-2-project-workspace.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "SPM-2 Project Workspace" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to spm-2-project-wor...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to spm-2-proje...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/spm-2-project-workspace.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "SPM-2 Project Workspace" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to spm-2-project-wor...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to spm-2-proje...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/spm-2-project-workspace.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
John Williams
OK, that helps. A couple of technical comments in response:
One, in prior SPM iterations, we’ve used t-score differences (0-9, 10-14, and 15+) as indicators of clinical significance. This seems like a very good thing to continue doing, both for clinical utility and revision continuity, so in principle we could also apply that here. Would that be a useful metric to know at the scale level whether there were significant differences between the child and caregiver, or is the most interesting thing really the SI integration vulnerability dimensions that you will want to look at. Or is it both?
Two, if it is the vulnerability that is (also) important, then this would be something that the user would need to generate herself from the responses, since we will most likely not have any separate scoring for the vulnerabilities.
We would want to have a very clear set of procedures for the user to make good sense out of their results in this regard. Something the group of you will have to think through carefully.
In the meantime, I will plan the statistical and tabular infrastructure for scale-level t-score differences to make the I/T level consistent with the other levels.
John
Diane Parham
Well said, Diana.
John, here are my first thoughts about your comments:
First, yes, I think it would be a very good thing to continue using T score differences as indicators of clinical difference between Home and School environments. But I am not sure whether this would be appropriate to do for difference between infant and caregiver. I would NOT want users to impose words like "problems" or "definite dysfunction" if there's a big difference in something like auditory processing between caregiver and child, especially if the caregiver actually has insight and is adapting well to a difficult infant. Now that I think about it, I wouldn't want to use that kind of wording even if the caregiver is struggling. It kind of pathologizes the situation, which could be demoralizing to the caregiver during this very delicate time in life. Maybe it would be helpful to compute difference scores, and simply use wording such as "some differences" for diffs of 10-14 points, and "strong differences" for 15+ point differences. And communicate that "differences" just means that the baby is processing sensations in a different way than the caregiver, and one is not better or worse than the other, just different. That information could be used to reassure and support the caregiver, rather than emphasizing problems. This is definitely a big topic for discussion for us.
About scoring for vulnerabilities (overresponsive, underresponsive, seeking, etc) -- another big topic for discussion -- I thought we were going to strive to have some vulnerability subscores. The idea was that for certain scales, our data from analyses such as factor analyses will probably show us whether subscores would be meaningful. For example, a subscore for tactile defensiveness would be very helpful on the TOU scale, and a subscore for gravitational insecurity would be helpful on the BAL scale for preschoolers and school-age children. Or alternatively, it might be meaningful to have an "Over-responsive" score, or "Under-responsive" score, or "Sensory seeking" score that cuts across scales. Hmm, I have not thought this through, but I foresee that this could require complicated scoring. But it could be very helpful to have at least an "over-responsive" score for some age groups.
We really appreciate your being so careful to communicate with us about these issues early in the game! Looking forward to our conference call on Monday.
Diane
To: spm-2-proje...@googlegroups.com
Subject: RE: Comparing caregiver to infant/toddler scoresRe: Go To Meeting link Mon June 12
John Williams
Diane,
I think there are two issues here, so let me respond to them separately. One is about difference between two t-scores, and how we cutoff and label the categories. The second is about the t-scores themselves, and how we cutoff and label the categories.
1. Regarding difference scores, these do not refer to the absolute value of any score, but only to the relative difference between the two. As such, the terms are neutral and do not refer to pathology at all. They are: No Difference, Probable Difference, and Definite Difference. So I don’t see any issue with the labeling. A thorny issue here, however, is that the IT/Caregiver difference is not between two ratings of the same person in different settings the way it is with every other age level (e.g., Home and School). Instead the difference is between two ratings of different people by the same person. Certainly still a candidate for a difference score, if you think that’s useful, but it’s something we’ll have to point out in the technical chapters as well as the interpretative sections.
2. Regarding clinical significance and interpretative labeling of a t-score (Typical, Some Problems, and Definitive Dysfunction), I think we should be very wary of making any changes here, either between the two versions of the SPM (or we will have to explain why the interpretation approach would have changed with the revision), or between different forms on the test (or we will have to explain how t-scores could mean something different). Although the clinical descriptors of any test are somewhat arbitrarily cut and labeled, to depart from our usual labels on one of the forms would call into question the very validity of the scores. I think the best we can do it to provide a suggestion in the interpretation section about how this information is presented to the caregiver. If there is such heightened sensitivity in a case of a struggling caregiver, then it may be best not to administer the form at all.
Sorry for the long length of that reply. J
Regarding the vulnerabilities scores, I expect those dimensions to be mostly noise at the factor level, because the much stronger orthogonality among the sensory domains will likely suck up all the variance in the model. We can run a confirmatory factor analysis this time, which can compare the two models – last time only and exploratory FA was run – but I suspect the results will be more or less the same as SPM and SPM-P. I think we’re going to run into the same problem taking an internal consistency approach to scale-building – I know that also failed in the prior versions – and also for subscale building as Diane suggested. The reliability of those scales would likely be too low to support, but I will absolutely work with the data as much as I can and see if anything emerges, but I’m not terribly optimistic about it.
Looking forward to talking with you all next week…
Diane Parham
Thanks for expanding on the issues, John. I was suggesting that we use only "difference" language when looking at infant-caregiver differences -- I wasn't clear that this is what you were advocating when I wrote that. So we're definitely in agreement on
that. I'm not sure what the other authors are thinking, regarding that. Again, I appreciate that you're bringing up critical issues now, before it's too late to make changes. We have a lot to talk about on Monday (and beyond).
Heather Miller Kuhaneck
From: Diane Parham <DiPa...@salud.unm.edu>
To: "spm-2-proje...@googlegroups.com" <spm-2-proje...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, June 8, 2017 12:35 PM
Diane Parham
I was hoping we could discuss this as well (the Some Problems & Definite Dysfunction words).
diane
Sent: Thursday, June 8, 2017 11:44 AM
John Williams
I don’t think it’s a problem to use a synonym like “problem” instead of “dysfunction.” The main thing is that the language is a logical extension of the other terms that represent the boundaries at t60, t70, etc. And certainly that the labels don’t change between forms.
I would need to hear more about what you would propose as the score profile for a caregiver. It seems to me that we have an obligation to provide a straightforward t-scoring of those domains on every form.
I may well be misunderstanding the point of this discussion, so maybe it’s better to cover it in the phone call.