Trend Article Analysis
Trend Article Analysis
Name
Course
Date
Instructor
Trend Article Analysis Trends in research date back hundreds of years to when certain findings, treatments, studies, and research projects started new trends and ways in the field of psychology. The following paper summarizes an article on optimism bias in psychology and clinical research, and examines how the trend and change have affected research methodology. Statistics from randomized trails and quantitative methods analyze optimism bias in clinical research and psychology. After the summary of the article, the impact or implications of the research methodology related trend, how optimism bias has affected the past and future of the field of psychology is broken down.
Article Summary In an article by Chalmers and Matthews (2006), the authors write about the topic of optimism bias and the impacts optimism bias has on the field of psychology and research methods regarding treatments. Optimism bias, also known as citation bias, is how studies of new treatments are more likely to cite previous studies reporting positive results than equally valid studies with disappointing results (Chalmers & Matthews, 2006, p. 1). Optimism bias takes old studies and integrates the study and citations into a new study claiming to work just as well if not better than the old just on the basis alone of the old study working. Upgraded or different versions of studies and methods need more than just proof the old methods or research worked. Unrealistic expectations are just one implication of optimism bias according to Chalmers and Matthews (2006). Patients and clinicians suffer from the unrealistic expectations offered by optimism bias. An example used in the article of optimism bias, a study conducted on a new radiotherapy treatment for head and neck cancer suffers gave high levels of optimism to patients claiming the treatment would cut the mortality rate in the individuals suffering by 30%. The trial found no
Name
Course
Date
Instructor
Trend Article Analysis Trends in research date back hundreds of years to when certain findings, treatments, studies, and research projects started new trends and ways in the field of psychology. The following paper summarizes an article on optimism bias in psychology and clinical research, and examines how the trend and change have affected research methodology. Statistics from randomized trails and quantitative methods analyze optimism bias in clinical research and psychology. After the summary of the article, the impact or implications of the research methodology related trend, how optimism bias has affected the past and future of the field of psychology is broken down.
Article Summary In an article by Chalmers and Matthews (2006), the authors write about the topic of optimism bias and the impacts optimism bias has on the field of psychology and research methods regarding treatments. Optimism bias, also known as citation bias, is how studies of new treatments are more likely to cite previous studies reporting positive results than equally valid studies with disappointing results (Chalmers & Matthews, 2006, p. 1). Optimism bias takes old studies and integrates the study and citations into a new study claiming to work just as well if not better than the old just on the basis alone of the old study working. Upgraded or different versions of studies and methods need more than just proof the old methods or research worked. Unrealistic expectations are just one implication of optimism bias according to Chalmers and Matthews (2006). Patients and clinicians suffer from the unrealistic expectations offered by optimism bias. An example used in the article of optimism bias, a study conducted on a new radiotherapy treatment for head and neck cancer suffers gave high levels of optimism to patients claiming the treatment would cut the mortality rate in the individuals suffering by 30%. The trial found no
References: Chalmers, I., & Matthews, R. (2006, February 11). What are the implications of optimism bias in clinical research. Lancet, pp. 449-450. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(06)68153-1.