21-04-2008, 22:04:19
Hombre, está bien acusarme de facilitar información "dispersa" cuando uno ni siquiera pone todo lo que dice el estudio que uno mismo ha traído.
¿Tú te lo has leído entero? Me da que no.
Skinner murió cuando Lorenzt se convirtió en mamá de unos gansos, por el simple hecho de que sus planteamientos son absurdamente reduccionistas, deterministas hasta la nausea y de un pragmatismo gélido, tres características que así combinadas dan lugar a cosas muy peligrosas. Ser psicólogo y reducir el mundo a la psicología es para nota. Muy mala nota, me refiero.
Te dejo una cita, a ver si sabes de quién es:
http://web1.tch.harvard.edu/views/june06/sleep.html
Hijo, yo no tengo la culpa de que seas de letras y no entiendas las bibliografía dispersa. La "ciencia" cuanto más se aleja del modelo científico, más integradora debe ser, si no, se convierte en...otra cosa.
Dinos, Isócrates, ¿por qué lloran los bebés?
¿Tú te lo has leído entero? Me da que no.
Quote:7.2 Methodological issuesQue sí, que son guays y funcionan, pero ni saben porqué (un poquito de neurobiología dispersa no les iría nada mal), ni saben cuánto dura (bueno sí, saben que muchos niños tienen que volver a reeducarse en cuanto que les sale un diente), ni saben cuales son los patrones normales de sueño, ni si los "pacientes son enfermos o sólo es impresión de los padres, ni saben si el diagnóstico es correcto, ni saben si hay efectos secundarios, a pesar de que existe bibliografía sobre psicopatología en adultos que ummmmmmm. Pues, muy bien. Cosas peores ha hecho la ciencia.
The outcomes of the research on the efficacy of clinical interventions
for early childhood sleep problems have been very
positive. However, clearly some notable methodological limitations
need to be considered. The lack of standard definitions and
criteria for sleep problems in early childhood limits the possibility
of comparisons between studies and sometimes even for different
interventions within studies. A similar problem is the lack of
standardized outcome measures that would enable comparisons
between studies.
Another potential concern in this area is the inclusion of singlecase
design studies, rather than sole reliance on RCTs as empirical
evidence for these behavioral interventions. The primary limitation
in studying a single-case is that the results from that particular
case may not be relevant to other cases (external validity).
However, larger samples producing statistically significant findings
do not necessarily mean that such effects are more powerful
or clinically significant.125 Experimental single-case research
designs (e.g., ABAB, multiple baseline) are stronger than large
group designs at isolating mechanisms of change (internal validity),
and are therefore used more commonly in applied behavioral
research, thus highly applicable to the question at hand.
Advances in technology have led to new objective methods
to assess sleep in young children. These relatively non-intrusive
techniques (e.g., time-lapse video, actigraphy, see Thoman and
Acebo126 for review) may provide clinicians an opportunity to
objectively assess target symptoms or problems in addition to
parental subjective reports. It has been suggested that inflated
improvement effects could result from parental fatigue when parents
are asked to document each night-waking on a daily basis for
extended periods.104 However, there are clear benefits to parental
report and the combination of subjective and objective measures.
Parental subjective experience of the sleep problem is clearly
valuable. Furthermore, objective measures may capture nighttime
awakenings that are not indicative of sleep disruption, providing
a better understanding of children’s sleep in general. A combination
of these measures is necessary to identify those children with
clinically significant sleep problems.
The scarcity of studies comparing different delivery methods
(e.g., clinical session versus booklet information) and their conflicting
results makes it difficult to assess the essential components
needed for an effective intervention. Some of these questions
could be answered by traditional outcome research (comparisons
between groups). Another approach is the use of process research
to assess the contributions of specific elements of interventions
(e.g., discussing parental fears and anxieties prior to the behavioral
coaching). The complementary role of process research has
not been well recognized and implemented in the study of behavioral
interventions for sleep problems (see Shirk and Russell127 for
a review of these methodological issues).
Another crucial issue is the assessment of the long-term efficacy
of the interventions. Most studies reviewed here had a follow-
up period of 6 months or shorter. Recently, the long-term
maintenance of positive outcomes of cognitive-behavioral interventions
has been questioned in different areas of psychopathology
in adults.128 Future research should include longer follow-up
periods than those that have been traditionally used.
7.3 Future research
It is clear that there are many crucial questions that remain to be
answered regarding the treatment of bedtime problems and night
wakings in young children. For instance, in light of the widerange
efficacy demonstrated by different intervention methods,
what are the actual curative factors or the essential ingredients of
these interventions? Other intriguing questions include: What are
the outcome changes in actual sleep patterns as opposed to those
reported sleep patterns? How long are these positive outcomes
maintained? What are the negative side effects, if any?
Additional research is also needed on the impact of interventions
on mood, behavior, and development. Specific child and
parent characteristics need further study, such as child (e.g., temperament,
age) and parent (e.g., depression, parenting style) variables
related to treatment success.
In addition to the above methodological concerns, future research
should move toward the use of standardized research diagnostic
criteria, as well as standardized assessment measures. The
use of standardized diaries and questionnaires would allow comparison
across studies and their outcomes, enabling meta-analytic
studies in this area. Furthermore, the addition of objective assessment
tools, such as actigraphy, would be highly beneficial.
Skinner murió cuando Lorenzt se convirtió en mamá de unos gansos, por el simple hecho de que sus planteamientos son absurdamente reduccionistas, deterministas hasta la nausea y de un pragmatismo gélido, tres características que así combinadas dan lugar a cosas muy peligrosas. Ser psicólogo y reducir el mundo a la psicología es para nota. Muy mala nota, me refiero.
Te dejo una cita, a ver si sabes de quién es:
Quote:Speaking of co-sleeping, what's your recommendation?Oh, my god. Ya te dije que Richard Ferber se había retractado de muchas cosas. Puedes leer la entrevista completa aquí:
Twenty years ago we had very little direct experience. We've found that youngsters sleep very well in a variety of situations, as seen around the world. From a sleep perspective, we have little evidence for or against any of these arrangements. We like to know families have plans for what they're going to do, for how long they plan to co-sleep and how they will transition to the next step. The American Academy of Pediatrics' recent guidelines against co-sleeping were stronger than past statements. While this is safe advice for the population at large, since it assures avoiding conditions that could be dangerous if not controlled, we've found that individual families can understand that if they make the changes necessary to assure the safety of the baby, they can co-sleep fairly safely. Another option is having the cradle near the bed.
http://web1.tch.harvard.edu/views/june06/sleep.html
Hijo, yo no tengo la culpa de que seas de letras y no entiendas las bibliografía dispersa. La "ciencia" cuanto más se aleja del modelo científico, más integradora debe ser, si no, se convierte en...otra cosa.
Dinos, Isócrates, ¿por qué lloran los bebés?
