Factors to consider when reviewing and reconciling research findings: Methodological, statistical and theoretical

ABSTRACT

Neuroscience is a rapidly evolving interdisciplinary field that is changing the way research is conducted and theories are developed. However, variability between studies and apparently discrepant findings may contribute to difficulties identifying commonalities that can help inform and enhance clinical practice. This article presents a framework to consider when reviewing neuropsychological studies, such that apparent discrepancies in findings may be considered in unison to provide informed theoretical understanding. For illustrative purposes, the article considers the studies of Vargha-Khadem, Salmond, Friston, Gadian, and Mishkin (2003) and Beauchamp et al. (2008), which report contrasting memory deficits during development in association with apparently similar bilateral hippocampal damage. The importance of reflecting on participant characteristics, methodological approaches, statistical analysis, and the interpretative value placed on selective test findings are discussed. Factors such as functional brain development, relationships between apparently “typical” functioning and underlying neural structures and networks, the limits of plasticity on the developing cognitive system and clinical implications are also considered. Thus, this article provides a structure that can be applied when reviewing neuropsychological studies and evaluating research inconsistencies, with consideration of the need for greater collaboration between neuroscientists and clinicians to support the development of translational research with real life implications.

KEYWORDS:

• Analysis translational research
• methodological approaches
• participant characteristics
• working memory

Notes

¹Plasticity refers to the brains capacity to respond and adapt to environmental input and experience, with a continuum proposed between early plasticity (i.e., good recovery due to increased flexibility) and early vulnerability (i.e., poor recovery due to disruption of critical processes; Anderson, Spencer-Smith, & Wood, 2011).