Re: methodology review for mental health research

Hello Lisa,

I think that there are two links that don't work from your email on
methodology review for mental health research.

http://www.ttuhsc.edu/gsbs/srw/JudgingCriteria_ScientificResearch.aspx
<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://www.ttuhsc.edu/gsbs/srw/JudgingCriteria_ScientificResearch.aspx__;!!LIr3w8kk_Xxm!5n_pLEjET__KZRMNyeb8stFFFB_ee3yKs9gxkK6-AFVb1uJhn6cWMWN1CMtUuGU$>

http://blog.reseapro.com/2012/08/criteria-of-good-research/
<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://blog.reseapro.com/2012/08/criteria-of-good-research/__;!!LIr3w8kk_Xxm!5n_pLEjET__KZRMNyeb8stFFFB_ee3yKs9gxkK6-AFVb1uJhn6cWMWN1kYNBuIo$>

Would you be able to share the working link?


Thank you.


Sincerely,

On Tue, Apr 20, 2021 at 8:55 AM Lisa Seeman <lisa1seeman@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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://urldefense.com/v3/__https://w3c.github.io/coga/user-research/*methodology-in-user-research__;Iw!!LIr3w8kk_Xxm!5n_pLEjET__KZRMNyeb8stFFFB_ee3yKs9gxkK6-AFVb1uJhn6cWMWN1RBZSTz8$>
>    2. Criteria by which we decide what research to accept: Due to
>    practical constraints most research will simply be cited and not examined
>    for credibility. However the following cases will rely on task force
>    consensuses before inclusion:
>       1. Commercial research that implies the use of a specific
>       proprietary product will be examined for scientific credibility before
>       being included
>       2. Research where the task force is aware of contradictory evidence
>       (including anecdotal) will be examined for scientific credibility before
>       being included.
>
> *Also I remember at the time that this included if anyone had doubts on
> conclusions from their experiences, we would evaluate it critically *
>
> Links for evaluating what scientific research is good (or not):
> http://www.reportbd.com/articles/57/1/Criteria-Qualities-of-Good-Scientific-Research/Page1.html
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://www.reportbd.com/articles/57/1/Criteria-Qualities-of-Good-Scientific-Research/Page1.html__;!!LIr3w8kk_Xxm!5n_pLEjET__KZRMNyeb8stFFFB_ee3yKs9gxkK6-AFVb1uJhn6cWMWN1ABNTwlE$>
>
> http://www.ttuhsc.edu/gsbs/srw/JudgingCriteria_ScientificResearch.aspx
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://www.ttuhsc.edu/gsbs/srw/JudgingCriteria_ScientificResearch.aspx__;!!LIr3w8kk_Xxm!5n_pLEjET__KZRMNyeb8stFFFB_ee3yKs9gxkK6-AFVb1uJhn6cWMWN1CMtUuGU$>
>
> http://www.slideshare.net/Sisyphosstone/81-criteria-ofscientificresearch
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://www.slideshare.net/Sisyphosstone/81-criteria-ofscientificresearch__;!!LIr3w8kk_Xxm!5n_pLEjET__KZRMNyeb8stFFFB_ee3yKs9gxkK6-AFVb1uJhn6cWMWN1K4vhZfg$>
>
> http://blog.reseapro.com/2012/08/criteria-of-good-research/
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://blog.reseapro.com/2012/08/criteria-of-good-research/__;!!LIr3w8kk_Xxm!5n_pLEjET__KZRMNyeb8stFFFB_ee3yKs9gxkK6-AFVb1uJhn6cWMWN1kYNBuIo$>
> See COGA_Resolutions
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/coga/wiki/COGA_Resolutions__;!!LIr3w8kk_Xxm!5n_pLEjET__KZRMNyeb8stFFFB_ee3yKs9gxkK6-AFVb1uJhn6cWMWN1cALgvlg$>
>
>
>
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://w3c.github.io/coga/user-research/*methodology-in-user-research__;Iw!!LIr3w8kk_Xxm!5n_pLEjET__KZRMNyeb8stFFFB_ee3yKs9gxkK6-AFVb1uJhn6cWMWN1RBZSTz8$>
>


-- 
Albert Kim | Pronouns: he/him | Twitter <https://twitter.com/djkalbert> |
Linkedin <https://www.linkedin.com/in/albertdkim/>