It's encouraging to hear that I'm following the same path you did, because your career has been so successful. And I'm sure it was your lack of theoretical framework and overambitious planning that got you there! ;-)
After talking it over with my co-worker/assistant/friend Steve, I'm trhinking that I might keep the sample size the same (or maybe slightly smaller), and cut out one of the follow-up points. I had been planning to do 6- and 12-month follow-ups, and upon further reflection that may indeed be too much for a grant of this length. And a study that's shorter than it could be is probably a lot better than a study that's too small to detect moderate effects.
I'll need to run it by the Project Officer and see what she thinks, though. She was actually there when my proposal was discussed at the study section, so she may have more information about what exactly people thought was infeasible.
I just wish they'd raised feasibility concerns in the first review, because I could have fixed it on the last go-round. Argh.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2007-12-04 03:08 pm (UTC)After talking it over with my co-worker/assistant/friend Steve, I'm trhinking that I might keep the sample size the same (or maybe slightly smaller), and cut out one of the follow-up points. I had been planning to do 6- and 12-month follow-ups, and upon further reflection that may indeed be too much for a grant of this length. And a study that's shorter than it could be is probably a lot better than a study that's too small to detect moderate effects.
I'll need to run it by the Project Officer and see what she thinks, though. She was actually there when my proposal was discussed at the study section, so she may have more information about what exactly people thought was infeasible.
I just wish they'd raised feasibility concerns in the first review, because I could have fixed it on the last go-round. Argh.