There is no doubt that modern lifestyle changes have contributed to the problems of overweight and obesity among adults and children. Some school health and physical education programs are tackling the challenge of integrating healthier eating and regular exercise into the lives of students. But what about the social challenges that face children who are overweight? And how do media messages reinforce the bias they already experience among many of their peers? In these lessons, students will evaluate both their own biases related to size differences and the ways in which media shape those biases.
General James Clapper, former United States Director of National Intelligence and the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA), once said \everything happens somewhere.\" He stressed that there are aspects of time and place to every intelligence problem. In this course, you will examine how time and place work with general intelligence techniques to create geospatial intelligence. You will learn and apply critical thinking skills, structured analytical techniques, and other intelligence methods in a geospatial context. You'll also learn how to reduce personal and organizational bias by conducting an Analysis of Competing Hypotheses, by R. Heuer, a 45-year veteran of the CIA. As a result, you will be better prepared for the world of geospatial intelligence analysis."
To increase transparency in research, the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors required, in 2005, prospective registration of clinical trials as a condition to publication. However, many trials remain unregistered or retrospectively registered. We aimed to assess the association between trial prospective registration and treatment effect estimates. Methods This is a meta-epidemiological study based on all Cochrane reviews published between March 2011 and September 2014 with meta-analyses of a binary outcome including three or more randomised controlled trials published after 2006. We extracted trial general characteristics and results from the Cochrane reviews. For each trial, we searched for registration in the report’s full text, contacted the corresponding author if not reported and searched ClinicalTrials.gov and the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform in case of no response. We classified each trial as prospectively registered (i.e. registered before the start date); retrospectively registered, distinguishing trials registered before and after the primary completion date; and not registered. Treatment effect estimates of prospectively registered and other trials were compared by the ratio of odds ratio (ROR) (ROR <1 indicates larger effects in trials not prospectively registered). Results We identified 67 meta-analyses (322 trials). Overall, 225/322 trials (70 %) were registered, 74 (33 %) prospectively and 142 (63 %) retrospectively; 88 were registered before the primary completion date and 54 after. Unregistered or retrospectively registered trials tended to show larger treatment effect estimates than prospectively registered trials (combined ROR = 0.81, 95 % CI 0.65–1.02, based on 32 contributing meta-analyses). Trials unregistered or registered after the primary completion date tended to show larger treatment effect estimates than those registered before this date (combined ROR = 0.84, 95 % CI 0.71–1.01, based on 43 contributing meta-analyses). Conclusions Lack of trial prospective registration may be associated with larger treatment effect estimates.
We may be leaving out information or disregarding it because it doesn't conform with our own beliefs. Students will learn about confirmation bias, different perspectives and how to avoid confirmation bias. This lesson is part of a media unit curated at our Digital Citizenship website, "Who Am I Online?".
Systematic error, or 'bias' is of particular importance in any epidemiological investigation, and should be avoided wherever possible. Biases will reduce the validity of any results obtained, whether it be by overestimating or underestimating the frequency of disease in a population or the association between an exposure and disease. The forms of bias covered here can only be minimised through careful study design and execution - they cannot be accounted for in the analysis. Although confounding is considered by many authors as a form of bias, it can be accounted for during analysis, and so is covered separately.
Discrepancies between pre-specified and reported outcomes are an important source of bias in trials. Despite legislation, guidelines and public commitments on correct reporting from journals, outcome misreporting continues to be prevalent. We aimed to document the extent of misreporting, establish whether it was possible to publish correction letters on all misreported trials as they were published, and monitor responses from editors and trialists to understand why outcome misreporting persists despite public commitments to address it. Methods We identified five high-impact journals endorsing Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) (New England Journal of Medicine, The Lancet, Journal of the American Medical Association, British Medical Journal, and Annals of Internal Medicine) and assessed all trials over a six-week period to identify every correctly and incorrectly reported outcome, comparing published reports against published protocols or registry entries, using CONSORT as the gold standard. A correction letter describing all discrepancies was submitted to the journal for all misreported trials, and detailed coding sheets were shared publicly. The proportion of letters published and delay to publication were assessed over 12 months of follow-up. Correspondence received from journals and authors was documented and themes were extracted. Results Sixty-seven trials were assessed in total. Outcome reporting was poor overall and there was wide variation between journals on pre-specified primary outcomes (mean 76% correctly reported, journal range 25–96%), secondary outcomes (mean 55%, range 31–72%), and number of undeclared additional outcomes per trial (mean 5.4, range 2.9–8.3). Fifty-eight trials had discrepancies requiring a correction letter (87%, journal range 67–100%). Twenty-three letters were published (40%) with extensive variation between journals (range 0–100%). Where letters were published, there were delays (median 99 days, range 0–257 days). Twenty-nine studies had a pre-trial protocol publicly available (43%, range 0–86%). Qualitative analysis demonstrated extensive misunderstandings among journal editors about correct outcome reporting and CONSORT. Some journals did not engage positively when provided correspondence that identified misreporting; we identified possible breaches of ethics and publishing guidelines. Conclusions All five journals were listed as endorsing CONSORT, but all exhibited extensive breaches of this guidance, and most rejected correction letters documenting shortcomings. Readers are likely to be misled by this discrepancy. We discuss the advantages of prospective methodology research sharing all data openly and pro-actively in real time as feedback on critiqued studies. This is the first empirical study of major academic journals’ willingness to publish a cohort of comparable and objective correction letters on misreported high-impact studies. Suggested improvements include changes to correspondence processes at journals, alternatives for indexed post-publication peer review, changes to CONSORT’s mechanisms for enforcement, and novel strategies for research on methods and reporting.
In response to a question from Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ), Dr. Phillip Atiba Goff discussed the ideas of bigotry, prejudice and systemic racism.
The issue of confounding is of central importance in any analytic epidemiological study (as well as in those descriptive studies aiming to compare different populations), especially in the case of observational studies. Confounding results from non-random differences between the groups of animals being compared in relation to a second, 'confounding' exposure which is independently associated with both the exposure of interest (although not a consequence of this) and the outcome of interest (although not an effect of this). This results in the effect of the exposure of interest is 'mixed up' with the effect of the confounding exposure, and therefore an incorrect estimate of the true association. As such, confounding is viewed by many authors as a form of bias - however, unlike forms of selection and information bias, it is a natural feature of the data (in the case of an observational study), and techniques are available to account for it during analysis.
The designing, collecting, analyzing, and reporting of psychological studies entail many choices that are often arbitrary. The opportunistic use of these so-called researcher degrees of freedom aimed at obtaining statistically significant results is problematic because it enhances the chances of false positive results and may inflate effect size estimates. In this review article, we present an extensive list of 34 degrees of freedom that researchers have in formulating hypotheses, and in designing, running, analyzing, and reporting of psychological research. The list can be used in research methods education, and as a checklist to assess the quality of preregistrations and to determine the potential for bias due to (arbitrary) choices in unregistered studies.
This cross-sectional study examines discrepancies between registered protocols and subsequent publications for drug and diet trials whose findings were published in prominent clinical journals in the last decade. ClinicalTrials.gov was established in 2000 in response to the Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act of 1997, which called for registration of trials of investigational new drugs for serious diseases. Subsequently, the scope of ClinicalTrials.gov expanded to all interventional studies, including diet trials. Presently, prospective trial registration is required by the National Institutes of Health for grant funding and many clinical journals for publication.1 Registration may reduce risk of bias from selective reporting and post hoc changes in design and analysis.1,2 Although a study3 of trials with ethics approval in Finland in 2007 identified numerous discrepancies between registered protocols and subsequent publications, the consistency of diet trial registration and reporting has not been well explored.
The toolkit contains a high-level overview of the facilitated conversation, with individual PowerPoint presentations and materials containing detailed notes, resources, and activities that will help you move through each part of the conversation. Educators are encouraged to modify these presentations so they work for your school community.
The Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) Statement is intended to facilitate better reporting of randomised clinical trials (RCTs). A systematic review recently published in the Cochrane Library assesses whether journal endorsement of CONSORT impacts the completeness of reporting of RCTs; those findings are summarised here.
Evaluations assessing the completeness of reporting of RCTs based on any of 27 outcomes formulated based on the 1996 or 2001 CONSORT checklists were included; two primary comparisons were evaluated. The 27 outcomes were: the 22 items of the 2001 CONSORT checklist, four sub-items describing blinding and a â€˜total summary scoreâ€™ of aggregate items, as reported. Relative risks (RR) and 99% confidence intervals were calculated to determine effect estimates for each outcome across evaluations.
Fifty-three reports describing 50 evaluations of 16,604 RCTs were assessed for adherence to at least one of 27 outcomes. Sixty-nine of 81 meta-analyses show relative benefit from CONSORT endorsement on completeness of reporting. Between endorsing and non-endorsing journals, 25 outcomes are improved with CONSORT endorsement, five of these significantly (Î± = 0.01). The number of evaluations per meta-analysis was often low with substantial heterogeneity; validity was assessed as low or unclear for many evaluations.
The results of this review suggest that journal endorsement of CONSORT may benefit the completeness of reporting of RCTs they publish. No evidence suggests that endorsement hinders the completeness of RCT reporting. However, despite relative improvements when CONSORT is endorsed by journals, the completeness of reporting of trials remains sub-optimal. Journals are not sending a clear message about endorsement to authors submitting manuscripts for publication. As such, fidelity of endorsement as an â€˜interventionâ€™ has been weak to date. Journals need to take further action regarding their endorsement and implementation of CONSORT to facilitate accurate, transparent and complete reporting of trials.
These lessons are provided by Echoes and Reflections. The lessons come from a new book, "Teaching the Holocaust By Inquiry" by Beth Krasemann. The book is scheduled for release at the end of May 2022.
On May 25, 2023, #GoOpen held a public webinar titled, "Educators Using OER to Identify and Remediate Bias." This session focused on using OER to engage all learners through an interactive Climate Education experience and was facilitated by ISKME professional learning specialist, Joanna Schimizzi, and consultant, Christina Spears, with moderator, Amee Evans Godwin.
The 11th grade learning experience consists of 7 mostly month-long units aligned to the Common Core State Standards, with available course material for teachers and students easily accessible online. Over the course of the year there is a steady progression in text complexity levels, sophistication of writing tasks, speaking and listening activities, and increased opportunities for independent and collaborative work. Rubrics and student models accompany many writing assignments.Throughout the 11th grade year, in addition to the Common Read texts that the whole class reads together, students each select an Independent Reading book and engage with peers in group Book Talks. Students move from learning the class rituals and routines and genre features of argument writing in Unit 11.1 to learning about narrative and informational genres in Unit 11.2: The American Short Story. Teacher resources provide additional materials to support each unit.
In this unit, students will produce two major pieces of work. The first piece is an argument essay that grapples with one of the core questions of the unit: who are we, and who have we become because of the ways we connect? Students will read, annotate, and discuss several texts together as they consider the issues surrounding this question, and they will also research and annotate independently as they search for more evidence and perspectives to help deepen their ideas. They will also create a museum exhibit as part of a team. The exhibit project will help students identify what's worth preserving about their unique place in history.
This project unit continues to meet the English Language Arts standards as it also utilizes the learning principles established by the Partnership for 21st Century Skills. It is designed to support deep content knowledge and perseverance through long-term project planning and implementation. In addition, it will help students to recognize, develop, and apply the planning, teamwork, communication, and presentation skills they will use while presenting a final product to their class and/or the greater community. This real-world project-based activity will give students an opportunity to apply the skills they have been learning all year and will guide them to develop the motivation, knowledge, and skills they need in order to be college and career ready.
Students write an argument paper where they develop a claim about current culture as it has been influenced by digital connectivity.
Students participate in a group project to create a museum exhibit that captures a unique place, time, and relationship to technology. Students acknowledge the differing perspectives of each group member and use those perspectives to synthesize one cohesive visual argument together.
These questions are a guide to stimulate thinking, discussion, and writing on the themes and ideas in the unit. For complete and thoughtful answers and for meaningful discussions, students must use evidence based on careful reading of the texts.
What does it mean to be digitally connected?
What are the implications of living in a world where everyone is digitally connected?
How does the availability of instant connectivity shape our relationships?
What does our Internet use reveal about people's needs as humans?
BENCHMARK ASSESSMENT: Cold Read
During this unit, on a day of your choosing, we recommend you administer a Cold Read to assess students’ reading comprehension. For this assessment, students read a text they have never seen before and then respond to multiple-choice and constructed-response questions. The assessment is not included in this course materials.
In this lesson, you will consider the ways that ubiquitous computing has changed how we interact with information and how it has changed how we think about knowledge. You'll also have an opportunity to research independently.In this lesson, students will consider the ways that ubiquitous computing has changed how we interact with information and how it has changed how we think about knowledge. They'll also have an opportunity to research independently.
This unit will explore the concepts of bias and confirmation bias and how they affect people's presentation and interpretation of data. It includes 5 days of lessons and independent work that culminate in students being able to show what bias and confirmation bias are and how they affect the way we interpret data.
Eyewitnesses can provide very compelling legal testimony, but rather than recording experiences flawlessly, their memories are susceptible to a variety of errors and biases. They (like the rest of us) can make errors in remembering specific details and can even remember whole events that did not actually happen. In this module, we discuss several of the common types of errors, and what they can tell us about human memory and its interactions with the legal system.
The media plays an important role in how you interpret current events. The news media can use particular wording to sway public opinion. This seminar will help you build necessary skills to analyze and understand the media you consume to help you make informed decisions.StandardsCC.8.5.9-10.F: Compare the point of view of two or more authors for how they treat the same or similar topics, including which details they include and emphasize in their respective accounts.CC.8.5.9-10.I Compare and contrast treatments of the same topic in several primary and secondary sources.CC.1.2.11-12.D Evaluate how an author’s point of view or purpose shapes the content and style of a text.CC.1.2.11-12.F Evaluate how words and phrases shape meaning and tone in texts.