Hi All
In a similar vein, what is it called when the subjects are put through a
trial of some sort, and the real reason and purpose for the experiment
is withheld from the subjects completely? I'm thinking of something
like Stanley Milgram's "pain" experiments. Subjects believed that they
were acting as a "teacher," inflicting pain on a third person (a
"learner") through electric shock when the "learner" gave incorrect
answers to questions posed by the person running the experiment But
actually, the participants themselves were the subjects of an
experiments to see how far they would go in their obedience to
authority. (The "learner" was not actually receiving any shocks, but
was using recoded sounds, and would add to the general confusion by
banging on the wall).
Regards
Ken
----
Dr. Ken Masters
Asst. Professor: Medical Informatics
Medical Education Unit
College of Medicine & Health Sciences
Sultan Qaboos University
Sultanate of Oman
____/\/********\/\____
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Meaning of "Triple blind"? Re: Definition of Single blind?
> From: John Bibby <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Sat, April 17, 2010 2:01 am
> To: [log in to unmask]
>
>
> Generally single-blind means the patient is blind, but the doctor/treater is
> not - see
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_blind#Single-blind_trials
>
>
> Double blind means that both are
>
> I once had to analyse some data and it turned out the patient groups
> variable was all mixed up. We christened this "triple blind" - even the
> statistician does not know who is in which group! (In fact, it was noticing
> some aberrant subgroups that first alerted us to this situation: the pharma
> people did not know their data was screwy.)
>
> JOHN BIBBY
>
>
>
>
> On 16 April 2010 19:16, Dr Philip Sedgwick <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> > Dear Allstaters
> >
> > With respect to clinical trials, I was taught the definition of
> > single-blind as the assessor was blind to allcoation but tthe patient was
> > not. The concept I suppose was based on the fact it was always possible to
> > blind the assessor to allcoation, but not necessarily the patient. Needless
> > to say I have no reference. I was further taught, like most things with
> > time, this definition has relaxed and it is possible for the assessor to be
> > aware of allcoation, but the patient not - still resulting in single-blind
> > trial.
> >
> > Does anyone have thoughts as to an original definition?
> >
> > Best wishes
> >
> > Philip Sedgwick
> >
> > St. George's, University of London
> > London SW17 0RE
> >
> > You may leave the list at any time by sending the command
> >
> > SIGNOFF allstat
> >
> > to [log in to unmask], leaving the subject line blank.
> >
>
> You may leave the list at any time by sending the command
>
> SIGNOFF allstat
>
> to [log in to unmask], leaving the subject line blank.
You may leave the list at any time by sending the command
SIGNOFF allstat
to [log in to unmask], leaving the subject line blank.
|