Experimental study design and grant writing in eight steps and 28 questions

被引:29
作者
Bordage, G
Dawson, B
机构
[1] Univ Illinois, Coll Med, Dept Med Educ, Chicago, IL 60612 USA
[2] So Illinois Univ, Sch Med, Dept Med, Springfield, IL 62708 USA
关键词
research design; standards; financing; organised; methods; data collection; ethics; writing;
D O I
10.1046/j.1365-2923.2003.01468.x
中图分类号
G40 [教育学];
学科分类号
040101 ; 120403 ;
摘要
While writing a grant proposal may take a few days, the planning of the study takes much longer and requires thoughtful consideration. The use of a systematic and itemised approach can help in planning crucial details of a study. An eight-step, 28-question, iterative approach is proposed to help with the careful planning of experiments in order to maximise the researchers' chances of acceptance when submitting the study for funding and its results for publication. The steps include defining a relevant research question; selecting instrumentation, study design and statistics; determining sample size and sampling procedure; ensuring data quality throughout data collection and analysis; setting personnel and budget requirements, and writing a convincing grant proposal. Reviewers pay particular attention to the importance of the research topic and question, the presence of a clear problem statement and up to date review of the literature, the use of an optimal design and instrumentation, a sufficient and unbiased sample, and appropriate and well applied statistics. They also appreciate a clear and easy to follow proposal. The research question is the keystone of the entire enterprise, followed by the selection of an optimal study design and the control of possible confounding variables. No study is perfect. The researchers must constantly weigh advantages and disadvantages and select the most scientifically sound and feasible alternatives. While the steps and questions presented are best applied to experimental studies, the principles are also applicable to a wide range of questions and observational, evaluative and qualitative designs.
引用
收藏
页码:376 / 385
页数:10
相关论文
共 13 条
[1]   Reasons reviewers reject and accept manuscripts: The strengths and weaknesses in medical education reports [J].
Bordage, G .
ACADEMIC MEDICINE, 2001, 76 (09) :889-896
[2]  
Dawson B., 2001, BASIC CLIN BIOSTATIS, V3rd
[3]  
Frankel J., 2000, DESIGN EVALUATE RES
[4]   When do medical students become human subjects of research? The case of program evaluation [J].
Henry, RC ;
Wright, DE .
ACADEMIC MEDICINE, 2001, 76 (09) :871-875
[5]  
Howell D.C., 1997, STAT METHODS PSYCHOL, VForth
[6]   STRUCTURED ABSTRACTS FOR PAPERS REPORTING CLINICAL-TRIALS [J].
HUTH, EJ .
ANNALS OF INTERNAL MEDICINE, 1987, 106 (04) :626-627
[7]  
Huth EJ., 1999, WRITING PUBLISHING M
[8]  
Joint Task Force of Academic Medicine and the GEA-RIME Committee, 2001, ACAD MED, V76, P897
[9]  
Mager R. F., 1984, PREPARING INSTRUCTIO
[10]   INTERACTIONS BETWEEN STATISTICIANS AND BIOMEDICAL JOURNAL EDITORS [J].
MARKS, RG ;
DAWSONSAUNDERS, EK ;
BAILAR, JC ;
DAN, BB ;
VERRAN, JA .
STATISTICS IN MEDICINE, 1988, 7 (10) :1003-1011