Areas of Expertise
Treatment experimental design
Cognitive rehabilitation treatment research encounters many complex challenges ranging from the selection of appropriate treatment candidates, to the definition of the active ingredients of treatment, to the appropriate outcome measures to detect treatment effects. NCRRN investigators (Buxbaum, Coslett, Fink, Hart, Kim, Schwartz, Whyte) offer specific expertise in experimental design for studies related to an enhanced understanding of cognitive impairments and their response to treatment.
Annotated Citations
- Whyte J: Assessing medical rehabilitation practices: Distinctive methodologic challenges. In Fuhrer MJ (ed.), The Promise of Outcomes Research, Baltimore: Brookes, (2):43-59, 1997.
This chapter examines the implications of the WHO International Classification of Functioning (ICF) for research design in rehabilitation and argues that the multiple levels of conceptual analysis inherent in rehabilitation require specialized research approaches. (JW)
- Whyte J, Hart T. It’s more than a black box; it’s a Russian doll: Defining rehabilitation treatments. American Journal of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 82(8):639-652, 2003.
This article focuses on the importance of rigorously defining the “active ingredients” of non-pharmacological rehabilitation treatments so that they can be studied and disseminated, and discusses some of the challenges associated with arriving at such definitions. (JW)
- Whyte J: Using treatment theory to refine the designs of brain injury rehabilitation treatment effectiveness studies. Journal of Head Trauma Rehabilitation, 21;2:99-106, 2006.
This article discusses the importance of treatment theories not only in arriving at definitions of the active ingredients of the study treatments themselves, but also, in identifying appropriate research subjects and measures of treatment response. (JW)