Search

We determined weights for a multi-criteria tool for assessing the relative merits of clinical-trial research proposals, and investigated whether the weights vary across relevant stakeholder groups. A cross-sectional, adaptive discrete choice experiment using 1000minds online software was administered to consumers, researchers and funders affiliated with the Australian Clinical Trials Alliance (ACTA). We identified weights for four criteria—Appropriateness, Significance, Relevance, Feasibility—and their levels, representing their relative importance, so that research proposals can be scored between 0% (nil or very low merit) and 100% (very high merit). From 220 complete survey responses, the most important criterion was Appropriateness (adjusted for differences between stakeholder groups, mean weight 28.9%) and the least important was Feasibility (adjusted mean weight 19.5%). Consumers tended to weight Relevance more highly (2.7% points difference) and Feasibility less highly (3.1% points difference) than researchers. The research or grant writing experience of researchers or consumers was not associated with the weights. A multi-criteria tool for evaluating research proposals that reflects stakeholders' preferences was created. The tool can be used to assess the relative merits of clinical trial research proposals and rank them, to help identify the best proposals for funding. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A core proposition in numerical cognition is numbers are represented spatially. Evidence for this proposition comes from the “spatial numerical association of response codes” effect (SNARC) in which faster responses are made by the left/right hand judging whether one of a pair of Arabic digits is smaller/larger than the other. Less is known if a similar SNARC effect exists for non-symbolic magnitudes; and research that has been conducted used stimuli which could be translated into symbolic terms. To overcome this limitation, we employed a referent-to-target judgment paradigm in which a referent dot array (n = 30 dots) was follow by a second array of dots (e.g., n = 45 or 15 dots)–participants judged if the second array contained fewer or more dots than the referent array. Dot arrays with fewer dots were judged more quickly with the left hand compared to the right hand (i.e., a SNARC effect). Not all participants demonstrated a SNARC effect, however. Neither visuospatial working memory nor math ability was associated with the presence/absence of a non-symbolic SNARC effect. Implications of the non-symbolic SNARC effect for accounts of numerical cognition are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]