This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Thomas, J. P. Articles by Lawrence, T. S. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Thomas, J. P. Articles by Lawrence, T. S. Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Back to Basics: The Scientific Method Revisited

Medical Sciences Programs, NIDRR, Washington, DC, U.S.A.

Toby S. Lawrence, RPT

Medical Sciences Programs, NIDRR, Washington, DC, U.S.A.

This article attempts to identify and describe those deficiencies determined by nonfederal peer reviewers during the most recent 1989 NIDRR (National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research) research competition to diminish successful funding opportunities from the lead federal agency concerned with medical rehabilitation research. The NIDRR scientific-technical review process is based on policies of the Education Department Grants Administration Regulations, which require announcement of all research competitions in the Federal Register and an ad-hoc nonfederal review of all applications. A total of 232 field-investigator-initiated research applications were received in response to the Federal Register announcement. Of these, 57, or 24.5%, were assigned to the Medical Sciences Programs office (MSP). Following assignment and review of four nonfederal panels and MSP staff, six applications were ultimately approved and funded (10.7%). The remaining 51 (89.5%) were statistically analyzed to determine deficiencies significant in warranting disapproval. These 51 applications averaged 5.68 deficiencies each. Five types of research errors accounted for 76.8% of all deficiencies noted by reviewers: methodologic errors (25), inadequate control of subject variables (25), inappropriate research design (24), poor conceptualization of problem/approach (21), and incorrect statistical analysis (14). The top-ranked singular deficiency was poor conceptualization of problem or approach. Other flaws warranting lowering of potential scores by reviewers included excessive budget requests, duplication of effort with ongoing supported research, inadequate background of investigator, and weak dissemination and utilization plans. Key Words: Methodology—Federal funding—Rehabilitation research.

Neurorehabilitation and Neural Repair, Vol. 3, No. 3, 137-141 (1989)
DOI: 10.1177/136140968900300305


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?