Re: Real Thirsty??? (Response)
- --- In Distillers@yahoogroups.com, "burrows206" <geoff@...> wrote:
> Hi Harry and Dean,
> Thanks you've just confirmed my own ideas as to what I
> was happening. ( I was remembering some of the previous posts youI
> wrote on a similar alcohol/water topic a while back) I gotta' say
> like my spirits.the
> My left hemiplegics stroke, lack of coordination during the
> following physiotherapy, not working and not being able to afford
> decent stuff (bad hangovers) where the main reason I quit drinkingfor
> a couple of years.chair
> I find a well coordinated, controlled fall from my wheel
> into the bed works fine. Well I do what I gotta' do to enjoymyself
> these days. I thought making the still was good occupationalget a
> therapy. Well they, the Occupational Department, did tell me to
> Thanks Harry and Dean, good to get the feed back confirmation
> the drinking of the water trickHi Geoff,
Good to see you haven't lost your sense of humour. :-)
I 'dips me lid' to you. If you can build a still & produce good
drinkable spirits under your physical restrictions, then you deserve
a medal. Cheers!
May I suggest something? Have you thought about teaching others
with your affliction to get involved in distilling as a therapy? As
you're aware, there's an endless number of offshoots and disciplines
in spirit production. Metallurgy, chemistry, physics, electrics &
electronics, woodworking, draftsmanship, brewing and many others too
numerous to mention. Who knows? Maybe it will be a vocation you
can really enjoy! I'm sure there could be some funding also if you
talk to the right people.
Smedley et al did a study that supports this idea. I've reproduced
it below, to save you searching for it. The copyright allows
Give it some thought.
I have a vested interest in people with special motor skills &
learning needs. I have an 8yo Son Kevin with Aspergers Syndrome.
Enjoyable activities may be more effective than traditional motor
function exercises in improving stroke clients' physical ability and
Smedley, R. R., Smedley, W. P., Aronica, M. J., Fiorino, A. J.,
Soucar, E., & Reynolds, D. (1986).
Slot machines: Their use in rehabilitation after stroke. Archives of
Physical Medicine and
Rehabilitation, 67, 546549.
Nonrandomized comparison of two or more groups or treatments in a
quasi-experiment without randomization to
group, condition, or sequence; 20 or more participants per condition
or group; low internal validity; moderate external
Why research this topic?
Traditional exercises to improve motor skills often are monotonous
and boring. A novel, entertaining, and purposeful
activity might offer clients more motivation to continue therapy,
which might result in greater therapeutic benefit.
What did the researchers do?
Smedley and colleagues (1986), variously of Temple University
(Philadelphia), of Allied Services for the Handicapped
(Scranton, Pennsylvania), and in private practice investigated the
effects of operating an adapted slot machine on
stroke clients' motor function and psychological well-being.
In the study, the researchers adapted slot machines to operate with
ordinary washers instead of coins and to allow
graded resistive exercises that accomplished the same muscle-
strengthening goals as traditional therapeutic devices.
The experimental group operated the machines as therapy. Both the
experimental and the control group performed
the tasks and the activities commonly used by therapists to improve
sensorimotor (see Glossary) functioning,
involving guided motion and devices such as pulleys, peg boards, and
The participants were 50 inpatients (gender not reported) from two
rehabilitation hospitals, who ranged in age from
40 to 84 years. Inpatients from one hospital constituted the
experimental group, inpatients from the other hospital the
control group. The two hospitals were identical in size, staff,
policies, and procedures. Occupational therapists delivered
The researchers were interested in two outcome areas: physical
ability (as indicated by range of motion, muscle
strength, and gross and fine motor coordination); and psychosocial
well-being (how the participants were faring psychologically
and socially, as measured by the Beck Depression Inventory).
What did the researchers find?
The experimental group improved significantly (see Glossary) more
than the control group on both measures.
What do the findings mean?
For therapists and other providers, the findings suggest that a
novel and entertaining intervention like operating slot
machines may be more effective than traditional motor function
exercises in improving stroke clients' physical ability
and psychosocial well-being.
What are the study's limitations?
First, the process used to select the participants may have
influenced the results. That is, the experimental group
came from one facility, the control group from the other. These
groups wouldat the leasthave different histories.
"History is a threat [to internal validity] when an observed effect
might be due to an event (or events) which takes
place between the pretest and the posttest when this event is not
the treatment of research interest" (Cook &
Campbell, 1979, p. 51).
Second, the experimental group received greater amounts of therapy
than the control group.
Third, the therapists who delivered the interventions may have known
the study's hypothesis and unintentionally
influenced the results.
Fourth, the participants probably were still in the acute stage of
their stroke, a time when spontaneous recovery
occurs with or without therapy. This phenomenon could have accounted
for the improvement seen in 90% of all the
Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (1979). Quasi-experimentation: Design
and analysis issues for field settings. Boston:
sensorimotor"of, relating to, or functioning in both sensory and
motor aspects of bodily activity" (Merriam
Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, 10th ed., p. 1066)
significance (or significant)A statistical term, this refers to the
probability that the results obtained in the study
are not due to chance, but to some other factor (such as the
treatment of interest). A significant result is one that is
likely to be generalizable to populations outside the study.
Significance should not be confused with clinical effect. A study
can be statistically significant without having a very
large clinical effect on the sample. For example, a study that
examines the effect of a treatment on a client's ability to
walk, may report that the participants in the treatment group were
able to walk significantly longer distances than the
control. However, if you read the study you may find that the
treatment group was able to walk , on average, six feet,
while the control group was able to walk, on average, five feet.
While the outcome may be statistically significant, a
clinician may not feel that a one foot increase will make his or her
Copyright 2003 American Occupational Therapy Association, Inc. All
This material may be reproduced and distributed without prior