triple-blind experiments

[T'ai Chi]

In the first link I posted, they don't include the experimenters in the triple-blind list.

Sure they do. From the link

triple blind (trip·le blind) (trip´əl blīnd) pertaining to a clinical trial or other experiment in which neither the subject nor the person administering treatment nor the person evaluating the response to treatment knows which treatment any particular subject is receiving.The term triple mask is sometimes preferred to avoid confusion associated with the use of the term “blind.”

In the second link I posted, they don't include the doctors and nurses in the triple-blind list.

Again, they do. They just don't mention "doctor" and "nurse" by name, which might be confusing you.

From the link

Triple blind (synonym: triple masked)
An expression that is sometimes used to indicate that knowledge of which study participants are in which comparison group is kept secret from the statistician doing the analysis as well as from the study participants and investigators (outcome assessors). See also blinding, single blind, double blind.

http://www.halfbakery.com/idea/Triple_20Blind_20Trial

they have a completely different definition of triple blind.

They didn't give a "definition" of it. They offered an idea of something that they are (incorrectly) calling a triple blind. A 'blind' refers to not knowing group membership. What they propose is

Given this a triple blind trial would involve the drug being tested on a range of diseases to determine its effectiveness compared with the placebo.

which has nothing to do with that.

 

[Jeff Corey]

There are tons of psych experiments where the participants don't hear what's going on until after. Every psych 101 student has had the experience where the teacher gives a pop quiz, leaves the room, and then someone wearing a cast comes in, asks to borrow a chair, and then has endless trouble moving the chair.

No.

 

[ChristineR]

Can you elaborate on that? It sounds interesting.

Would such a study be publishable (is that even a word?)?

The main point is that everybody sits there and looks dumb until one person gets up and says "can I help?" then everybody tries to help. It's more an illustration than an experiment.

There are also plenty of experiments where people don't even know they are being tested, such as when grocery stores put up a new display case and measure the sales figures. Not exactly grand science, but these things do get published in trade journals.

 

[Jeff Corey]

The main point is that everybody sits there and looks dumb until one person gets up and says "can I help?" then everybody tries to help. It's more an illustration than an experiment.

There are also plenty of experiments where people don't even know they are being tested, such as when grocery stores put up a new display case and measure the sales figures. Not exactly grand science, but these things do get published in trade journals.

I think that we are using the term "experiment" in two different ways. For a scientist, an experiment involves manipulating an independent variable (the possible cause) and reliably measuring a dependent variable (the effect) while controlling for as many confounding variables (like the placebo effect or experimenter bias) as possible. Checking out grocery store displays don't hack it. And trade journals typically don't publish experiments.
And I have to say that that demonstration you described struck me as rather lame. In over 100 intro psych courses, I've never done anything like it.
Apparently stuck a 8 inch needle through my arm, vanished a lit cigarette and pulled the Princess Card trick a few times.
But, whatever works.

 

[strathmeyer]

I think that we are using the term "experiment" in two different ways.

Yes, I was originally confusing "experiment" with "study".

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

What I'm suggesting is that we use "single blind" when only the patients are blinded and "double blind" when additional people are blinded, with a footnote to specify who those additional people are. It does not appear that "triple blind" is well-defined.

"... nor the person administering treatment ..."

The experimenter is quite often not the person administering treatment.

"... and investigators (outcome assessors). ..."

The resident doctors and nurses are not the investigators.

People, I'm telling you, the definition of "triple blind" is mush.

I'll stop now.

~~ Paul

 

[T'ai Chi]

The resident doctors and nurses are not the investigators.

Are you saying that doctors and nurses don't fall into any of these categories:

a) person(s) receiving the treatment
b) person(s) administering the treatment
c) person(s) analyzing the data

?

What other category is there that involves the treatmen?

People, I'm telling you, the definition of "triple blind" is mush.

Glad things don't go away just because you don't like them, then.

 

[jj]

Are you saying that doctors and nurses don't fall into any of these categories:

a) person(s) receiving the treatment
b) person(s) administering the treatment
c) person(s) analyzing the data

?

What other category is there that involves the treatmen?



Glad things don't go away just because you don't like them, then.

Perhaps after you acquaint yourself with the commonly used semantics, you'll come back and apologize?

No, I'm not going to attempt to teach you, you've shown enough malicious misunderstanding to make your agenda perfectly cear.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Are you saying that doctors and nurses don't fall into any of these categories:

a) person(s) receiving the treatment
b) person(s) administering the treatment
c) person(s) analyzing the data

Yes, they do, but those categories don't include the experimenters. It was the other link that didn't include the doctors and nurses.

~~ Paul

 

[CFLarsen]

So why don't we throw everyone but the patients in the second group and stick with double-blind? I guess because experimenters have done so-called double-blind experiments where certain people were not blinded, so they needed to invent triple-blind to correct their mistakes.

No, they need to call it "triple", in order to convey the image that they are strengtening the controls. They merely add what should have been there in the first place. It's a cheap semantic trick.

What I'm suggesting is that we use "single blind" when only the patients are blinded and "double blind" when additional people are blinded, with a footnote to specify who those additional people are. It does not appear that "triple blind" is well-defined.

Agree.

There are data-providers (patients) and data-handlers (everyone else). We can blind the data-providers (single-blind) and we can blind the data-handlers (double-blind). But if we want to talk of triple-blind, we also have to talk quadruple and quintuple blind, and so on.

We should blind those who carry the data from one place to another. That's one level more. We should encrypt the computers that store the data. That's another. We should encrypt the datalines by which the data is transmitted. That's yet another.

It's not only ludicrous, it gives people who don't know better a false sense of security.