Common use of Research Methodology Clause in Contracts

Research Methodology. As noted in Chapters 1 and 2 this project concerns how mental health trainees approach care and the clinical judgments they make during case conceptualization and treatment planning. When faced with the same patient or client, are professionals’ diagnostic- and treatment-related decisions similar, altogether dissimilar, or do they vary systematically along professional lines? To that end I pose three research questions. First, to what degree do mental health trainees’ approach to care and clinical (i.e., diagnostic and treatment-related) judgments vary? Second, does professional affiliation help explain some of the variability in trainees’ clinical decision making and approach to care? Finally, in what ways is professional affiliation associated with clinical decision making and approach to care among clinical trainees? This study focuses on advanced clinical trainees enrolled in three training programs: Emory’s General Psychiatry Residency program, Emory’s Clinical Psychology program, and University of Georgia’s Master of Social Work program. I employ a mixed- methods triangulation design (▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ and Plano ▇▇▇▇▇ 2007), a design used to obtain different yet complementary data on the same topic. The triangulation design involves collecting quantitative and qualitative data concurrently and assigns equal weight to both data sources. I employ the “convergence model” (ibid) of the triangulation mixed- methods design, a model where quantitative and qualitative data are collected separately on the same topic and then the results from each data source are merged during interpretation. The convergence model helps researchers reach valid conclusions about phenomena by gauging larger trends from quantitative data sources and then enriching those findings with the depth and understanding that come from qualitative lines of inquiry. In order to address trainees’ clinical judgments I asked the full population of advanced psychiatry residents and clinical psychology graduate students from Emory University and master’s of social work students from the University of Georgia to participate in evaluating a written case study of a client manifesting symptoms of anxiety and depression. I measured participating trainees’ case conceptualizations and clinical decisions regarding this case via a self-administered survey (the quantitative component). In order to both validate and enrich the survey data on clinical decision making and collect separate information about trainees’ approach to working with clients I concurrently conducted in-depth, semi-structured interviews with a subset of trainees from each of the professional programs (the qualitative component). For the remainder of this chapter I break the study down into its two components, the survey (quantitative) component and the interview (qualitative) component, where applicable.

Research Methodology. As noted in Chapters 1 and 2 this project concerns how mental health trainees approach care and the clinical judgments they make during case conceptualization and treatment planning. When faced with the same patient or client, are professionals’ diagnostic- and treatment-related decisions similar, altogether dissimilar, or do they vary systematically along professional lines? To that end I pose three research questions. First, to what degree do mental health trainees’ approach to care and clinical (i.e., diagnostic and treatment-related) judgments vary? Second, does professional affiliation help explain some of the variability in trainees’ clinical decision making and approach to care? Finally, in what ways is professional affiliation associated with clinical decision making and approach to care among clinical trainees? This study focuses on advanced clinical trainees enrolled in three training programs: Emory▇▇▇▇▇’s General Psychiatry Residency program, Emory▇▇▇▇▇’s Clinical Psychology program, and University of Georgia’s Master of Social Work program. I employ a mixed- methods triangulation design (▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ and Plano ▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇ 2007), a design used to obtain different yet complementary data on the same topic. The triangulation design involves collecting quantitative and qualitative data concurrently and assigns equal weight to both data sources. I employ the “convergence model” (ibid) of the triangulation mixed- methods design, a model where quantitative and qualitative data are collected separately on the same topic and then the results from each data source are merged during interpretation. The convergence model helps researchers reach valid conclusions about phenomena by gauging larger trends from quantitative data sources and then enriching those findings with the depth and understanding that come from qualitative lines of inquiry. In order to address trainees’ clinical judgments I asked the full population of advanced psychiatry residents and clinical psychology graduate students from Emory University and master’s of social work students from the University of Georgia to participate in evaluating a written case study of a client manifesting symptoms of anxiety and depression. I measured participating trainees’ case conceptualizations and clinical decisions regarding this case via a self-administered survey (the quantitative component). In order to both validate and enrich the survey data on clinical decision making and collect separate information about trainees’ approach to working with clients I concurrently conducted in-depth, semi-structured interviews with a subset of trainees from each of the professional programs (the qualitative component). For the remainder of this chapter I break the study down into its two components, the survey (quantitative) component and the interview (qualitative) component, where applicable.