What Could Fool Us Into the Wrong Conclusion?
Take the reading one piece at a time. For each piece: read it once, underline the sentence that says what happens, then look up any word in the list. Tap a word to see its definition.
Piece 1 of 2
In a randomized clinical trial of children with unilateral cleft lip and palate, researchers compared two ways of repairing the palate and asked which gave better dental-arch growth, scored 1 to 5 on the GOSLON yardstick by outside judges who did not know which technique a child received. Here is the twist: the dental-arch outcome did not track with the surgical technique at all. It tracked with which surgeon did the operation. A skilled surgeon got good results with either technique. The technique effect the team almost reported was really a surgeon effect wearing a technique costume.
Piece 2 of 2
In a separate five-country case-control study, mothers of babies with clefts were asked to recall pregnancy exposures, and so were mothers of babies without clefts. Mothers of an affected baby tend to search their memory harder ('what did I do?'), so they report more exposures, not because they had more, but because they remember more intensely. That is recall bias: the way the exposure was measured differed between the two groups.
Reading the Research
- Skim the title and abstract first to get the gist.
- Circle the one sentence that states the main claim.
- Box the evidence the authors give for that claim.
- Mark one sentence that confuses you, and move on.
Now put it together: In one or two sentences, say what this whole reading is telling you about Mateo. Then go back to the lesson and fill in the guided notes.