This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citation map  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in this journal  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

John P. Morgan, MD; William M. Wardell, MB, PhD; Michael Weintraub, MD; John M. Mazzullo, MD; Louis Lasagna, MD

Arch Intern Med. 1974;134(2):380-383.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text PDF and any section headings.

After choosing a dependent variable and deciding how to measure it, the researcher is still faced with the serious problem of controlling extraneous (to him) events that may affect the "pure" response of the system under study. In many experiments, we hold all the factors we can think of constant and hope (some pray) that those unknown or forgotten will exert only minor influences. Those who deal in human research unashamedly act as if they can perform these maneuvers even when the subject may act in any number of capricious ways. Clinical research, and particularly that in which the measure is subjective, has been compared to a chess game in which all pieces are autonomous and the pawn might revolt at any time if not closely watched.¹ In this report we relate our experiences in evaluating a hypnotic drug in a geriatric population. Probably we would not have dared . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

Author Affiliations
Rochester, NY

From the departments of pharmacology and toxicology, and medicine, University of Rochester School of Medicine and Dentistry, Rochester, NY.

Footnotes
Submitted for publication Feb 16, 1973; accepted March 15.

Reprint requests to 260 Crittenden Blvd, Rochester, NY 14642 (Dr. Morgan).

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?