methodology review for mental health research

Hi Folks
As we are moving forward with  mental health, we should review the
methodology we used last time, and see if we need changes.

As we have Jason on the phone this week, he may be able to give us some
input! We also should review this after we have recruited more experts in
this topic.

When we last thought about methodology we came to the following conclusions.

   1. We  had a general methodology on what we are looking for each topic
   #methodology-in-user-research
   <https://w3c.github.io/coga/user-research/#methodology-in-user-research>
   2. Criteria by which we decide what research to accept: Due to practical
   constraints most research will simply be cited and not examined for
   credibility. However the following cases will rely on task force
   consensuses before inclusion:
      1. Commercial research that implies the use of a specific proprietary
      product will be examined for scientific credibility before being included
      2. Research where the task force is aware of contradictory evidence
      (including anecdotal) will be examined for scientific credibility before
      being included.

*Also I remember at the time that this included if anyone had doubts on
conclusions from their experiences, we would evaluate it critically *

Links for evaluating what scientific research is good (or not):
http://www.reportbd.com/articles/57/1/Criteria-Qualities-of-Good-Scientific-Research/Page1.html

http://www.ttuhsc.edu/gsbs/srw/JudgingCriteria_ScientificResearch.aspx

http://www.slideshare.net/Sisyphosstone/81-criteria-ofscientificresearch

http://blog.reseapro.com/2012/08/criteria-of-good-research/
See COGA_Resolutions
<https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/coga/wiki/COGA_Resolutions>


<https://w3c.github.io/coga/user-research/#methodology-in-user-research>