Replication is a hallmark of scientific research. The fact that there is now a crisis around replication of findings from (primarily) social psychology and psychology indicates that the disciplines do apply the scientific method and try to uphold these principles.
The crisis is due to the unique nature of every human and the thousands of different variables affecting every individual's brain, making it difficult to establish true control groups and consistent results when accounting for the multitude of known and unknown variables.
This isn't physics or chemistry or any number of other fields where the rules, variables, and the interactions between them, are clearly defined.
They have entire courses dedicated solely to learning the method and conducting experiments, and that's just undergrad. They reiterate the inherent variability of the field's focus and the importance of strictly adhering to the scientific method to obtain objective results.
It is certainly a difficult field to study due to this, buy to claim that they don't follow the scientific method is blatantly wrong and absurd.
Yes. More importantly, a more diverse sample so we know it is not due to a comorbid condition (anxiety and depression are highly comorbid). All they ruled out was autism and bipolar.
"Six participants with comorbid autism
spectrum disorder and one with comorbid bipolar disorder were excluded due to confounding symptom overlaps, leaving a final sample of 11 participants (seven female, four male) (M = 32.0, SD = 6.56, range 23–44 years)."
So basically, assume 8 of them had cats. Does that mean having cats is a type of adhd? One subtype is "sleep" yet that is a classic sign of depression and anxiety.
Many of their "types" could be normal behavior or comorbid anxiety/depression. No way to tell.
You literally have no concept of how this actually works.
No, a single researcher cannot "do" all those interviews. The process itself, including scoring and evaluation, is time heavy and requires multiple evaluators. That costs money. This is why we begin with intensive, small sample exploratory studies before moving into large scale studies.
Publishing each step is also the way we communicate science. The journal is respectable because we report n sizes and everyone reading the publication is well aware of the limitations. This is why we report sample sizes. To dismiss every study, regardless of exploratory status, because of an arbitrary self-defined concept of "adequate n" is just foolish.
Reporting a low n and the other major limitations of a study doesn't make a journal "respectable".
Publishing high-quality peer-reviewed research does.
Having found the paper online, it doesn't scream high-quality to me.
If the authors were not going to bother increasing the sample size (and they planned for it to be 50% larger but had to drop a bunch of people from the study), then this research design required a more homogenous sample.
It’s not intriguing, people have been saying similar shit about adhd for years and years. This is nothing new and so the absolutely tiny sample size and no quantitative data makes it essentially useless.
So what you’re saying is that with only 11 people as the sample size you found 9 categories of symptoms. Imagine the difference if you had a reasonable sample size. No way on earth this study will stand up to any real scrutiny
Why is this so low? I must have assessed over 1000 people by now but I wouldn't consider that a large enough sample to publish any work. The audacity to publish anything based on 11 patients unless it's an extremely rare condition that only affects like 11 patients.
New study: revealed that only one person thinks 11 isn't enough /s
Serious answer, same funding, less staff, less patients,
Same exposure, less people to cut the cake with.
Nobody takes crap like this serious, it only exists so that someone related to the project can can later ask for bigger funding and a tax free bank account.
Or to discredit already existing government programs
Thanks. Im so used to clicking on list articles stuffed with "What is X" and "What does X mean" that have been SEOed to death. I’ve developed this fast-scroll-past-the-usual-BS technique.
Qualitative studies have their own uses like exploratory analysis. They also generally don’t have as large of a sample size. You have to interpret the data differently.
[OP] Separate_Ad_9141 | 10 days ago
Methodology comprises qualitative interviews with 11 adults, before you all get too excited.
armchairdetective | 10 days ago
Ah.
So it's fairly useless?
Final_boss_1040 | 10 days ago
I mean it's an article from Psychology Today, what were you expecting?
armchairdetective | 10 days ago
What am I expecting? From a peer-reviewed study published in an academic journal with an impact factor of 5.1? Hmmm. Hard to say.
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/irish-journal-of-psychological-medicine/article/adhd-symptom-manifestation-in-adulthood-moving-beyond-conceptualisations-of-inattention-and-hyperactivityimpulsivity/444EEC3AD2DA08FCCC1C3A0B1B41A488
LanceLynxx | 9 days ago
Psychology isn't a science though.
Major-Librarian1745 | 9 days ago
What is it?
LanceLynxx | 9 days ago
A field of study that doesn't follow the scientific method.
armchairdetective | 9 days ago
Yes it is.
What are you talking about?
LanceLynxx | 9 days ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis
armchairdetective | 9 days ago
Thank you, I am aware of the replication crisis.
Replication is a hallmark of scientific research. The fact that there is now a crisis around replication of findings from (primarily) social psychology and psychology indicates that the disciplines do apply the scientific method and try to uphold these principles.
It's frankly bizarre to claim otherwise.
LanceLynxx | 9 days ago
If they did then there would be no crisis in the first place.
ShimmiShimmiYah | 9 days ago
The crisis is due to the unique nature of every human and the thousands of different variables affecting every individual's brain, making it difficult to establish true control groups and consistent results when accounting for the multitude of known and unknown variables.
This isn't physics or chemistry or any number of other fields where the rules, variables, and the interactions between them, are clearly defined.
They have entire courses dedicated solely to learning the method and conducting experiments, and that's just undergrad. They reiterate the inherent variability of the field's focus and the importance of strictly adhering to the scientific method to obtain objective results.
It is certainly a difficult field to study due to this, buy to claim that they don't follow the scientific method is blatantly wrong and absurd.
armchairdetective | 9 days ago
That is certainly an opinion.
Shame it's an uninformed one.
DoingItJust | 10 days ago
Why would it be useless? Small sample size doesn't mean it has no clinical utility.
armchairdetective | 10 days ago
Because there are too many other variables. They all have adhd but we can't be sure that these symptoms are related to adhd without a larger sample.
mootmutemoat | 10 days ago
Yes. More importantly, a more diverse sample so we know it is not due to a comorbid condition (anxiety and depression are highly comorbid). All they ruled out was autism and bipolar.
"Six participants with comorbid autism spectrum disorder and one with comorbid bipolar disorder were excluded due to confounding symptom overlaps, leaving a final sample of 11 participants (seven female, four male) (M = 32.0, SD = 6.56, range 23–44 years)."
So basically, assume 8 of them had cats. Does that mean having cats is a type of adhd? One subtype is "sleep" yet that is a classic sign of depression and anxiety.
Many of their "types" could be normal behavior or comorbid anxiety/depression. No way to tell.
armchairdetective | 10 days ago
I cannot believe this was published in a journal with an impact factor above 5.
ButterandZsa | 9 days ago
This is a qualitative study not a quantitative one.
mootmutemoat | 9 days ago
You can do a case-contol qualitative study and reflect on how the themes are different.
People do it with gender all the time.
deezdanglin | 10 days ago
Ahhh, but it asks a question. And there's a 'possible' correlation. Can't always start/get funding for a 5k participant study. It just opens the door!
armchairdetective | 10 days ago
11 interviewees for this kind of exploratory study is nonsense.
Why not 40 or 50? A single researcher could do 30 of these interviews no problem.
Age effects. Cohort effects. Gender effects. All of these things are a huge issue here before we even get to comorbities.
It would have been better to scrape all of the ADHD subreddit and do topic modelling.
doktornein | 9 days ago
You literally have no concept of how this actually works.
No, a single researcher cannot "do" all those interviews. The process itself, including scoring and evaluation, is time heavy and requires multiple evaluators. That costs money. This is why we begin with intensive, small sample exploratory studies before moving into large scale studies.
Publishing each step is also the way we communicate science. The journal is respectable because we report n sizes and everyone reading the publication is well aware of the limitations. This is why we report sample sizes. To dismiss every study, regardless of exploratory status, because of an arbitrary self-defined concept of "adequate n" is just foolish.
Welcome to the basics.
armchairdetective | 9 days ago
Reporting a low n and the other major limitations of a study doesn't make a journal "respectable".
Publishing high-quality peer-reviewed research does.
Having found the paper online, it doesn't scream high-quality to me.
If the authors were not going to bother increasing the sample size (and they planned for it to be 50% larger but had to drop a bunch of people from the study), then this research design required a more homogenous sample.
deezdanglin | 10 days ago
Then be the change you want.
Tll6 | 9 days ago
So you want them to conduct their own research studies because they have valid critiques about a particular publication?
DoingItJust | 10 days ago
You're right, generally, but there are too many variables in any mental health diagnosis already. This is still useful clinically.
deezdanglin | 10 days ago
All research has to start somewhere.
simonbleu | 10 days ago
If you reproduce the results at different scales sure
quad_damage_orbb | 10 days ago
Why did you post it then?
CatShot1948 | 10 days ago
Because it's intriguing? Do we really have to wait until everything is known about a topic before posting about it? Seems like a weird bar
Hugs154 | 9 days ago
It’s not intriguing, people have been saying similar shit about adhd for years and years. This is nothing new and so the absolutely tiny sample size and no quantitative data makes it essentially useless.
Unserious_Cow | 10 days ago
So what you’re saying is that with only 11 people as the sample size you found 9 categories of symptoms. Imagine the difference if you had a reasonable sample size. No way on earth this study will stand up to any real scrutiny
megaapfel | 9 days ago
So many? /s
Brrdock | 10 days ago
Are categories "found" or defined?
armchairdetective | 10 days ago
Thematic analysis.
vocalfreesia | 10 days ago
Why is this so low? I must have assessed over 1000 people by now but I wouldn't consider that a large enough sample to publish any work. The audacity to publish anything based on 11 patients unless it's an extremely rare condition that only affects like 11 patients.
lobster_liberace | 10 days ago
New study: revealed that only one person thinks 11 isn't enough /s
Serious answer, same funding, less staff, less patients, Same exposure, less people to cut the cake with.
Nobody takes crap like this serious, it only exists so that someone related to the project can can later ask for bigger funding and a tax free bank account.
Or to discredit already existing government programs
Saint_Joan_of_Shark | 10 days ago
“This research received no specific grant from any funding agency, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.”
Ah yes, science research is of course so notoriously overfunded, and everyone knows small, qualitative studies are a cash grab.
/s
Infamous_Alpaca | 10 days ago
Why do they list only 6 categories in the article?
DeadWombats | 10 days ago
It says right in the article that the first 3 are already well-known
>
Among those, we feature the original triad mentioned in the DSM: inattention, hyperactivity, impulsivity
Infamous_Alpaca | 10 days ago
Thanks. Im so used to clicking on list articles stuffed with "What is X" and "What does X mean" that have been SEOed to death. I’ve developed this fast-scroll-past-the-usual-BS technique.
ShapeShiftingCats | 10 days ago
It's pop sci trash from psychology today.
The psychology sub is full of their half baked articles, we really don't need to spread them across Reddit.
ButterandZsa | 9 days ago
Qualitative studies have their own uses like exploratory analysis. They also generally don’t have as large of a sample size. You have to interpret the data differently.
MutedFeeling75 | 9 days ago
lol
Please_HMU | 10 days ago
wtf is this garbage. They literally only list 6 in the article, and it’s all the most obvious shit in the world that we already know
KingZarkon | 10 days ago
The other three are listed in the opening: hyperactivity, impulsivity, and inattention.
costafilh0 | 9 days ago
9? Most ADHD will stop reading at 2 and forget to come back to it.
mremrock | 10 days ago
A disease that can’t be tested for, or measured, or ruled out
Standard-Contest-949 | 10 days ago
Of course it does. Much like everyone is autistic and now they all on the spectrum.
IBeDumbAndSlow | 10 days ago
Bullshit article! It's says 9 things but only lists 6