Search

Your search keyword '"Donovan, Mary K."' showing total 4 results
Start Over Author "Donovan, Mary K." Language undetermined
4 results on '"Donovan, Mary K."'

1. Electronic Supplementary Material from Parsing human and biophysical drivers of coral reef regimes

Author

Jean-Baptiste Jouffray, Wedding, Lisa M., Norström, Albert V., Donovan, Mary K., Williams, Gareth J., Crowder, Larry B., Erickson, Ashley L., Friedlander, Alan M., Graham, Nicholas A. J., Gove, Jamison M., Kappel, Carrie V., Kittinger, John N., Lecky, Joey, Oleson, Kirsten L. L., Selkoe, Kimberly A., Crow White, Williams, Ivor D., and Nyström, Magnus

Abstract

Electronic Supplementary Material containing Figures S1, S2, S3, S4 and S5, as well as Tables S1, S2, S3, S4 and S5.

Published
2019
Full Text
View/download PDF

3. Quantifying and addressing the prevalence and bias of study designs in the environmental and social sciences

Author

Christie, Alec P., Abecasis, David, Adjeroud, Mehdi, Alonso, Juan C., Amano, Tatsuya, Anton, Alvaro, Baldigo, Barry P., Barrientos, Rafael, Bicknell, Jake E., Buhl, Deborah A., Cebrian, Just, Ceia, Ricardo S., Cibils-Martina, Luciana, Clarke, Sarah, Claudet, Joachim, Craig, Michael D., Davoult, Dominique, De Backer, Annelies, Donovan, Mary K., Eddy, Tyler D., França, Filipe M., Gardner, Jonathan P. A., Harris, Bradley P., Huusko, Ari, Jones, Ian L., Kelaher, Brendan P., Kotiaho, Janne S., López-Baucells, Adrià, Major, Heather L., Mäki-Petäys, Aki, Martín, Beatriz, Martín, Carlos A., Martin, Philip A., Mateos-Molina, Daniel, McConnaughey, Robert A., Meroni, Michele, Meyer, Christoph F. J., Mills, Kade, Montefalcone, Monica, Noreika, Norbertas, Palacín, Carlos, Pande, Anjali, Pitcher, C. Roland, Ponce, Carlos, Rinella, Matt, Rocha, Ricardo, Ruiz-Delgado, María C., Schmitter-Soto, Juan J., Shaffer, Jill A., Sharma, Shailesh, Sher, Anna A., Stagnol, Doriane, Stanley, Thomas R., Stokesbury, Kevin D. E., Torres, Aurora, Tully, Oliver, Vehanen, Teppo, Watts, Corinne, Zhao, Qingyuan, and Sutherland, William J.

Subjects
706/648, 704/172/4081, article, 706/689, 15. Life on land, 631/158
Abstract

Building trust in science and evidence-based decision-making depends heavily on the credibility of studies and their findings. Researchers employ many different study designs that vary in their risk of bias to evaluate the true effect of interventions or impacts. Here, we empirically quantify, on a large scale, the prevalence of different study designs and the magnitude of bias in their estimates. Randomised designs and controlled observational designs with pre-intervention sampling were used by just 23% of intervention studies in biodiversity conservation, and 36% of intervention studies in social science. We demonstrate, through pairwise within-study comparisons across 49 environmental datasets, that these types of designs usually give less biased estimates than simpler observational designs. We propose a model-based approach to combine study estimates that may suffer from different levels of study design bias, discuss the implications for evidence synthesis, and how to facilitate the use of more credible study designs.

4. Quantifying and addressing the prevalence and bias of study designs in the environmental and social sciences

Author

Christie, Alec P, Abecasis, David, Adjeroud, Mehdi, Alonso, Juan C, Amano, Tatsuya, Anton, Alvaro, Baldigo, Barry P, Barrientos, Rafael, Bicknell, Jake E, Buhl, Deborah A, Cebrian, Just, Ceia, Ricardo S, Cibils-Martina, Luciana, Clarke, Sarah, Claudet, Joachim, Craig, Michael D, Davoult, Dominique, De Backer, Annelies, Donovan, Mary K, Eddy, Tyler D, França, Filipe M, Gardner, Jonathan PA, Harris, Bradley P, Huusko, Ari, Jones, Ian L, Kelaher, Brendan P, Kotiaho, Janne S, López-Baucells, Adrià, Major, Heather L, Mäki-Petäys, Aki, Martín, Beatriz, Martín, Carlos A, Martin, Philip A, Mateos-Molina, Daniel, McConnaughey, Robert A, Meroni, Michele, Meyer, Christoph FJ, Mills, Kade, Montefalcone, Monica, Noreika, Norbertas, Palacín, Carlos, Pande, Anjali, Pitcher, C Roland, Ponce, Carlos, Rinella, Matt, Rocha, Ricardo, Ruiz-Delgado, María C, Schmitter-Soto, Juan J, Shaffer, Jill A, Sharma, Shailesh, Sher, Anna A, Stagnol, Doriane, Stanley, Thomas R, Stokesbury, Kevin DE, Torres, Aurora, Tully, Oliver, Vehanen, Teppo, Watts, Corinne, Zhao, Qingyuan, and Sutherland, William J

Subjects
Bias, Ecology, Literature, Research Design, FOS: Biological sciences, Prevalence, Humans, Social Sciences, Biodiversity, 15. Life on land, Environment
Abstract

Building trust in science and evidence-based decision-making depends heavily on the credibility of studies and their findings. Researchers employ many different study designs that vary in their risk of bias to evaluate the true effect of interventions or impacts. Here, we empirically quantify, on a large scale, the prevalence of different study designs and the magnitude of bias in their estimates. Randomised designs and controlled observational designs with pre-intervention sampling were used by just 23% of intervention studies in biodiversity conservation, and 36% of intervention studies in social science. We demonstrate, through pairwise within-study comparisons across 49 environmental datasets, that these types of designs usually give less biased estimates than simpler observational designs. We propose a model-based approach to combine study estimates that may suffer from different levels of study design bias, discuss the implications for evidence synthesis, and how to facilitate the use of more credible study designs.

Catalog

Books, media, physical & digital resources
See catalog results