Given Baby P/Shipman whats more important, evidence based medicine or admission ?

[Gizmo says -]

and please, macca, do no be so rude to spiders.

[northoftherriver]

Originally Posted by ipsiLoquitor

Didn't want to 'punish' you with evidence and the evidence posted below only applies to my introductory point (think of it being a thesis with these references applying to the introductory paragraph).

However, now we know you don't know what inventories are, what they measure or how they work, you can look them up on Wiki and notice some of the references which I cut and paste only to demonstrate that if you take my theory stepwise and logically, each element of it is fully supported by the data. The following references simply support some general concepts and do not represent my adaptations to the tests:

Ipsi, just cutting and pasting a list of references from a wikipedia article (this one if anyone is interested: Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ) isn't really very helpful in moving along the discussion. Have you read those references? What in particular about them supports your claim?

The use of these inventories may predict pathology but does not (on its own) diagnose it. This is important to bear in mind I feel. To hold these up as an objective measure of mental illness/psychopathology is a bit of a simplification. I think they are a useful tool for the purposes for which they are designed, that is, to assist diagnosis.

Finally those references you list largely pertain to clinical settings. While the validity of the test may well be established in therapeutic/forensic settings, what is the validity of this test in the context of recruitment? You have yet to show any.

I have provided, and discussed, an example where the predictive power of a test you linked to was negligible across the sample population, and marginal when subgroups were examined post hoc. What is your response to that study?

[ipsiLoquitor]

Originally Posted by northoftherriver

Ipsi, just cutting and pasting a list of references from a wikipedia article (this one if anyone is interested: Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ) isn't really very helpful in moving along the discussion. Have you read those references? What in particular about them supports your claim?

The use of these inventories may predict pathology but does not (on its own) diagnose it. This is important to bear in mind I feel. To hold these up as an objective measure of mental illness/psychopathology is a bit of a simplification. I think they are a useful tool for the purposes for which they are designed, that is, to assist diagnosis.

Finally those references you list largely pertain to clinical settings. While the validity of the test may well be established in therapeutic/forensic settings, what is the validity of this test in the context of recruitment? You have yet to show any.

I have provided, and discussed, an example where the predictive power of a test you linked to was negligible across the sample population, and marginal when subgroups were examined post hoc. What is your response to that study?

I'll answer your points more fully another time because its late. Now the main point I want to make is that your post demonstrates that you haven't been following the thread. If you had, you would notice that your latest response represents progress indeed from the ignorance out of which it originated.

[northoftherriver]

Originally Posted by ipsiLoquitor

I'll answer your points more fully another time because its late. Now the main point I want to make is that your post demonstrates that you haven't been following the thread. If you had, you would notice that your latest response represents progress indeed from the ignorance out of which it originated.

Oh I'm following the thread alright. Look forward to your responses.

[mariposa]

No one here is qualified to really discuss this properly. Its fine to throw a few armchair opinions around but really thats all they are. You need training and academic knowledge in psychology, criminology and the law. A forum for wannabe medics are unlikely to cover all (if any of these subjects).
Get educated, (no more wikipedia references, come on give yourself some credibility) learn some manners (it is a skill to be able to dismiss your opponent without them even realising what you have done) and then debate this in circles more appropriate to your subject. Would be medical students don't get to decide how they are recruited anyway, it sounds like you want to discuss this with admissions tutors and scholars of the aformentioned fields.

[ipsiLoquitor]

Originally Posted by mariposa

No one here is qualified to really discuss this properly. Its fine to throw a few armchair opinions around but really thats all they are. You need training and academic knowledge in psychology, criminology and the law. A forum for wannabe medics are unlikely to cover all (if any of these subjects).
Get educated, (no more wikipedia references, come on give yourself some credibility) learn some manners (it is a skill to be able to dismiss your opponent without them even realising what you have done) and then debate this in circles more appropriate to your subject. Would be medical students don't get to decide how they are recruited anyway, it sounds like you want to discuss this with admissions tutors and scholars of the aformentioned fields.

Wow = thanks for your 'tangential' thinking Mariposa. The least that we can see here is that you haven't read the thread.

You appear to be projecting your 'armchair assessment' on folks here.

In addition, you appear to have no knowledge of the spectrum of evidence available and the weightings that can be placed upon it.

Take this 'anecdotal evidence' relating to the Shannon Mathews incident:

"A psychological report on Matthews highlighted her "inability to successfully place the children's needs above her own" in December 2003 - three years before Shannon went missing.

Do we think this is an example of 'predictive psychological assessment' ?

You know, Mariposa, only the second half of your name makes sense to me - why ? BEcause this is a thread about BAby P. And what have you chosen to do ? To judge, without any skill, all of the above posters, just as the doctor judged the baby to be 'cranky'.

I guess that you think the 200,000 members of the Facebook group would be better off writing a letter to Social Services or talking to admissions tutors too ?

You forget that Admissions Tutors are just humans, capable of many mistakes, often with multiple responsibilities. It is really not surprising if as in the Shannon Mathews case, they have not got to grips with the value of psychological assessment.

As far as knowledge is concerned, can you 'read between the lines' to suggest a diagnosis given the quoted assessment above? If you can you wil find that it has already been mentioned on this thread.

If you are a wannabe medic I would be interested to know if you have one single idea bout how admissions processes could be changes or are you merely giving the benefit of your 'knoweledge' and wisdom to say 'don't bother thinking guys, we do that after we qualify - if we get accepted'.

[Gizmo says -]

on a more sombre note, one of me best friends died yesterday, maccas.

[mariposa]

it is precisely because I am aware of the spectrum of evidence that I say no one here is qualified to fully understand it. You have certainly not demonstrated it in this thread.

you seem quite an angry individual.. I was merely suggesting you take your argument to an audience that would receive it.
In fact I don't actually disagree with most of your points, just how you have managed to alienate most posters is both impressive and unfortunate.

If you've been rejected for med school at interview perhaps this part of your adversarial personality is shining through too much? Great for law school.. not for med school. Make your points through a big smile! Appreciate as many sides to the story as you can before giving your opinion. Don't get angry with them.

Gizmo... if thats true i'm very sorry.

[Granny Midges]

Gizmo, that is very sad news. Are you ok ?

[ipsiLoquitor]

Originally Posted by mariposa

it is precisely because I am aware of the spectrum of evidence that I say no one here is qualified to fully understand it. You have certainly not demonstrated it in this thread.

you seem quite an angry individual.. I was merely suggesting you take your argument to an audience that would receive it.
In fact I don't actually disagree with most of your points, just how you have managed to alienate most posters is both impressive and unfortunate.

If you've been rejected for med school at interview perhaps this part of your adversarial personality is shining through too much? Great for law school.. not for med school. Make your points through a big smile! Appreciate as many sides to the story as you can before giving your opinion. Don't get angry with them.


Gizmo... if thats true i'm very sorry.

Mariposa: when you say 'nobody here' are you talking about posters, viewers or e-mail readers ? It should be clear to you that to make such a claim 'that nobody here is qualified to talk about it' is ridiculous. Why ? Because you have no evidence.

'Evidence' isn't a legal concept just its also used in medicine. If you read some of the powerpoint introductions on the opening page you will see that Evience Based Medicine includes taking account of the individual preferences and so on of the patient i.e. respect.

When you make such a judgement, I believe that you disrespect the posters, the viewers and perhaps reveal a limitation in your own 'undemocratic' thinking. Fortunately, we live in a democracy where people are free to speak.

For you to 'know better' and suggest that my choice of forum is 'wrong' is incredibly judgemental.

I note that of all the points you could have made, you have not discussed Baby P, the arguments discussed or even contributed to the points other posters have made.

The issue of attacking the personality rather than the issue was dealt with earlier in the thread which you haven't read. Labelling (e.g. 'angry') was also dealt with and a reference given to a paper on the subject. Again, you have nothing of substance to say on the issues.

Do you have a single contribution to make about how the entry processes for doctors, med students (or other professionals) could be improved ? In the case of Shannon, a psychologists' report accurately predicted the need for action >3 years in advance.

You are also unaware of paradox. If what you are saying is true, that nobody here is qualified to understand it, that precludes you from making your gross generalisations and judgements - unless, of course, you believe that if only we knew you, we would see that you have this expertise.

Elitism didn't help Baby P.

Elitism based on prejudice won't help future Baby Ps.

Please let me know if I missed any of your other contributions. I will let you know that 200,000 people on Facebook feel qualified to contribute.

We are here talking about the use of psychological and psychodynamic assessment as part of a renewed strategy to protect patients, including Baby P.

From your post above, it is clear that on the flimsiest of evience you have not examined the thread, nor what my 'symptoms' were, instead preferring to label me 'cranky' (read 'angry) and jump to conclusions.

Even the least qualified can see your failure to address the issues.