Professional Documents
Culture Documents
EBook Foundations of Clinical Research Applications To Practice 3Rd Edition Ebook PDF PDF Docx Kindle Full Chapter
EBook Foundations of Clinical Research Applications To Practice 3Rd Edition Ebook PDF PDF Docx Kindle Full Chapter
8 Sampling 143
Reliability 241
Experimental Control: Limitations of the A-B Design 242
Withdrawal Designs 242
Multiple Baseline Designs 246
Designs with Multiple Treatments 251
Data Analysis in Single-Subject Research 254
Generalization of Findings 268
Commentary: Documenting Wisely 271
Probability 405
Sampling Error 408
Confidence Intervals 411
Hypothesis Testing 416
Type I Error: Level of Significance 419
Type II Error: Statistical Power 421
Concepts of Statistical Testing 424
Parametric versus Nonparametric Statistics 429
Commentary: Statistical Significance versus
Clinical Significance 429
23 Correlation 523
24 Regression 539
Appendices
A. Statistical Tables 801
B. Relating the Research Question to the Choice of Statistical Test 823
C. Power and Sample Size 830
D. Transformation of Data 856
E. Sample Informed Consent Form 860
Glossary 863
Index 880
Preface
As we approached the revision of this text for the third edition, we realized that the
prevailing paradigms of clinical research in rehabilitation and medicine had continued
to evolve over the past 10 y ears, and that we had to address several important changes
in the research landscape. Probably the most notable of these changes is the emphasis
on evidence-based practice (EBP) that has become central to all of health care. The
World Health Organization's adoption of the International Classification of Functioning
and Disability (ICF) has created a new vocabulary that is being integrated into research
and practice across disciplines. Questions related to diagnostic accuracy and clinical
decision making are prominent in research literature, and phrases like "responsive
ness," "minimally important change" and "number needed to treat" are becoming
essential to EBP. Attitudes about clinical research have emphasized the responsibility
of every clinician to better understand how to apply evidence to patient care, and the
gaps in our research knowledge have become more evident as we often search for
answers that are not there.
This book has served a variety of audiences in research, professional education and
clinical practice. It continues to be directed toward those in physical therapy, occupa
tional therapy, speech therapy, nursing, medicine, exercise physiology, and public
health, as well as other disciplines concerned with questions of health and health care.
The book will remain a text for courses in research and critical inquiry, as well as a com
prehensive reference for clinicians and researchers who are committed to evidence
based practice.
We have included varied levels of detail in design and statistics to meet the diverse
needs of those who use this text. Instructors are urged to consider which portions of the
text are relevant for their students, and not to expect to use it all in their courses. Stu
dents will find it user-friendly as they learn concepts and principles of research, and
will keep it is a reference as they grow in their professional role. Those who are engaged
in research activities or advanced education will be able to utilize the more detailed
portions as they explore research questions. And clinicians will be able to apply these
principles to their clinical decision making.
The application of evidence-based practice to health care requires an understand
ing of design and analytic methods. Our text is not going to provide the answers to clin
ical questions for practice-that must be left to journal articles and clinical textbooks,
and to those who mentor students and clinicians, who will ask the right questions. Our
XV
xvi PREFACE
contribution is to provide the foundations that are necessary for finding and interpret
ing research evidence. Clinicians must provide the experience and knowledge to apply
the research to their practice.
Although the general organization of the book has not changed, several additions
have been incorporated into this edition to provide a contemporary framework for clin
ical research. Part I covers the basic concepts of research, including a discussion of the
ory and ethical principles. In this section we introduce important contexts for research
related to models of health and evidence-based practice. Part II focuses on measure
ment, including a comprehensive examination of reliability and validity. Part Ill pre
sents the broaa scope of experimental, exploratory and descriptive research
approaches, including a new chapter on systematic reviews and meta-analysis.
Part IV of the text is devoted to the application of statistical procedures, from
descriptive to multivariate approaches. This section now contains expanded content
related to clinical decision making, including likelihood ratios, pretest and posttest prob
abilities, minimally important change and number needed to treat. We continue to focus
on the conceptual foundations of statistics, although calculations are provided for those
who desire that level of detail. We use the format for SPSS in presenting output, but with
explanations that we trust will allow integration with other statistical packages.
Part V focuses on processes of research and communication, including an expanded
chapter on searching the literature, development of proposals, presentation of research,
and critical appraisal of published literature. Appendices provide tables of reference for
statistical procedures, a newly designed algorithm for choosing statistical approaches
for analysis, examples of power analysis for various designs, methods of transforming
data, and a sample informed consent form.
Prentice Hall has provided a wonderful opportunity to share information related
to all sections of the book on their companion website, which can be accessed at
www.prenhall.com/portney. We hope you will find this a helpful addition to the text,
especially for those who use it for teaching purposes.
As the health care environment evolves, we will always anticipate new directions
and priorities for clinical research. Therefore, this work will always be in progress. We
are proud to be part of the larger health care research and clinical communities that are
clearly dedicated to the pursuit of new knowledge and the application of evidence to
improve patient care. We look forward to the continued journey with all of you.
Acknowledgments
We are indebted to many friends and colleagues who have shared their thoughts and
time with us as this edition has been developed. We extend our gratitude to Dale Avers,
Steve Alison, Jane Baldwin, Marianne Beninato, Maura Iversen, Madhuri Kale, Kevin
Keams, Aimee Klein, Mary Knab, Virgil Mathiewitz, Ruth Purtilo, Paul Stark, Patricia
Sullivan and Elise Townsend for taking the time to read, critique and provide feedback
on sections of the book. Several individuals were especially helpful in providing
in-depth reviews: Roy Lee Aldridge Jr, Louise Dunn, Mary Ann Holbein-Jenny, Robin
Gaines Lanzi, Beth Marcoux, Keli Mu, Gerald Smith, Rebecca States, Gordon St. Michael
and Frank Underwood. We thank Laurita Hack, Kay Shepherd and Kim Nixon-Cave,
from Temple University, who provided significant assistance to improve the content on
qualitative research, and Joy McDermid who so graciously shared her experiences with
systematic reviews.
We continue to thank our students from the MGH Institute of Health Professions
for their enthusiasm and generous spirit. And we are grateful to all of our colleagues
who stop us at conferences and other venues to share a kind word about how the book
has helped them. Those are moments of true satisfaction.
The staff at Prentice Hall has remained dedicated and understanding as we labored
through this revision. We appreciate everyone's patience and will continue to be
grateful to Mark Cohen for all he has done to keep this work moving. We want to
thank Nicole Ragonese (Editorial Assistant), Patrick Walsh (Production Manager), and
Christina Zingone (Production Liaison) for their contributions. Angela Corio has done
a wonderful job writing the content for the book's Web site. Karen Berry (Production
Editor) at Pine Tree Composition was wonderfully supportive through the production
of the book.
As always, our families remain the foundation of our lives, and we are ever grate
ful for their support. Leslie's girls are out of the house, finding their way in life, and
Mary's girls are married with daughters of their own. Skip and John are now doing the
cooking in addition to the dishes-and we are all looking forward to the next chapters
in our lives!
xvii
Reviewers
Roy Lee Aldridge Jr., PT, SCCT Keli Mu, PhD, OTR/L
Assistant Professor Assistant Professor
Arkansas State University Creighton University
State University, Arkansas Omaha, Nebraska
Mary Ann Holbein-Jenny, PhD, DPT Gordon St. Michael, MPH, OTR/L, FAOTA
Associate Professor Associate Professor
Slippery Rock University Eastern Kentucky University
Slippery Rock, Pennsylvania Richmond, Kentucky
xix
PART I
Foundations of
Clinical Research
A Concept
Clinical Research
The ultimate purpose of a profession is to develop a knowledge base that will maximize
the effectiveness of practice. To that end, health professionals have recognized the
necessity for documenting and testing elements of clinical practice through rigorous
and objective analysis and scientific inquiry. The concept of evidence-based practice
represents the fundamental principle that the provision of quality care will depend on
our ability to make choices that have been confirmed by sound scientific data, and that
our decisions are based on the best evidence currently available. If we look at the foun
dations of clinical practice, however, we are faced with the reality that often compels
practitioners to make intelligent, logical, best-guess decisions when scientific evidence
is either incomplete or unavailable.
This situation is even more of an issue because of the economic challenges that con
tinue to confront health care. Clinical research has, therefore, become an imperative,
driving clinical judgments, the organization of practice, and rl:!imbursement. The task of
addressing the needs of the present and future is one that falls on the shoulders of all
clinicians-whether we function as consumers of professional literature or scientific
investigators-to collect meaningful data, to analyze outcomes, and to critically apply
research findings to promote optimal clinical care. Through collaborative and interdis
ciplinary efforts, researchers and clinicians share a responsibility to explore the broad
est implications of their work, to contribute to balanced scientific thought. The purpose
of this text is to provide a frame of reference that will bring together the comprehensive
skills needed to promote critical inquiry as part of the clinical decision making process.
In this chapter we develop a concept of research that can be applied to clinical prac
tice, as a method of generating new knowledge and providing evidence to justify treat
ment choices. We will explore an historic perspective of clinical research, the framework
of evidence-based practice, the different types of research that can be applied to clinical
questions, and the process of clinical research.
3
4 PART I • Foundations of Clinical Research
with it the realization that research has a broader meaning as it is applied to the patients
and situations encountered in practice. Clinical research is a structured process of
investigating facts and theories and exploring connections. It proceeds in a systematic
way to examine clinical conditions and outcomes, to establish relationships among clin
ical phenomena, to generate evidence for decision making and to provide the impetus
for improving methods of practice.
Clinical research must be empirical and critical; that is, results must be observable,
documented and examined for their validity.1 This objective process is, however, also a
dynamic and creative activity, performed in many different settings, using a variety of
quantitative and qualitative measurement tools and focusing on the application of clin
ical theory and interventions. It is a way of satisfying one's curiosity about clinical phe
nomena, stimulating the intellectual pursuit of truth to understand or explain clinical
events, and generating new or different ways of viewing clinical problems.
The context of clinical research is often seen within a prevailing paradigm.
Scientific paradigms have been described as ways of looking at the world that define
both the problems that can be addressed and the range of legitimate evidence that con
tributes to solutions.2 We can appreciate changes in research standards and priorities in
terms of three paradigm shifts that have emerged in rehabilitation and medicine through
the latter half of the 20th century: the focus on outcomes research to document effective
ness, the application of models of health and disability and most recently an attention
to evidence-based practice.
MEASUREMENT OF OUTCOMES
The concept of looking at outcomes as the validation of quality care is not a new one.
Historically, the triad of structure, process and outcomes has been used as the barometer
of healthcare quality? Structure was assessed through organizational standards, and
process through quality assurance programs examining details such as charges and
record keeping. Outcomes of care were typically assessed in terms of morbidity, mor
tality, length of stay and readmissions.
In rehabilitation, outcomes were often related to improvements in impairments or
pathologies, with the assumption that such changes would be linked to the ultimate
outcomes of interest. Today, the concept of outcomes has been expanded to fit with the
World Health Organization's definition of health, which includes physical, social and
psychological well-being.4 Looking at the effects of intervention now includes con
sideration of patient satisfaction, patient preferences, self-assessment of functional ca
pacity and quality of life. Clinicians and especially patients have always considered
functional outcome as the ultimate measure of the success of intervention. At this time,
however, consumers and reimbursement policies have obligated health care practition
ers to define and document outcomes, and to substantiate the efficiency and effective
ness of treatment.
To be meaningful the outcomes agenda must influence public policy, routine moni
toring of medical care and standardized assessment of patient outcomes.5 Clinical prac
tice databases must be developed to include functional outcome measures and other
CHAPTER 1 • A Concept of Clinical Research 5
Outcome Measures
Outcomes can be documented in many ways. Economic indicators are traditional out
comes, interpreted within the context of cost effectiveness or cost-benefit ratio; that is,
what is the relative cost in terms of success of outcomes? For example, Harp14 demon
strated how revenue, patient outcomes, staff productivity, costs and patient satisfac
tion could reflect the success of a rehabilitation program for patients with back and
neck problems. Fakhry and associates15 looked at the effectiveness of using evidence
based guidelines for treating patients with traumatic brain injury (TBI), a condition
they described as costing billions of dollars annually. They used a protocol based on
Brain Trauma Foundation guidelines, and demonstrated that adherence to this proto
col resulted in a reduction of mortality, length of stay and disability as well as finan
cial resources.
The development of questionnaires to measure outcomes in terms of function and
health status has become a major thrust of health research and has provided a mecha
nism for understanding how functional outcomes relate to specific elements of health
care. Generic instruments that assess quality of life, and more specifically health-related
quality of life (HRQOL), have provided an overarching perspective for understanding
the outcomes of health care in terms of physical, psychological and social function.
Many health status scales have been developed to assess these constructs. Two of
the more widely used instruments, the Medical Outcomes Study Short-Form 36 (SF-36)
and the Sickness Impact Profile (SIP), have been validated in many languages16 -22 and
for many different patient populations.Z3-34 These scales have also been tested in abbre
viated forms that demonstrate an efficiency of validity. These instruments allow for cal
culation of a summary score or subscale scores that are theoretically related to different
dimensions of function and health status. For example, the SF-36 provides eight sub
scale scores that reflect physical function, physical role limitations, mental function,
social function, vitality, general health, bodily pain, and emotional role limitations.35
Those who study HRQOL have debated the usefulness of generic measures over
disease-specific (or condition or region-specific) instruments that include items focused
on issues relevant to a particular disorder. For example, the Western Ontario and
McMaster Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) is specific to arthritis.36 The Minnesota
6 PART I • Foundations of Clinical Research
Living with Heart Failure Q uestionnaire targets individuals with heart disease.37 Stud
ies that compare generic and specific tools generally lead to the conclusion that specific
tools are more powerful for understanding impairments and function, but both are
needed to get a full picture of the individual's quality of life.38-40
Issues of validity for outcome measures remain paramount, as researchers and cli
nicians must understand the conditions and situations for which these tests are appro
priate. The interpretation of outcomes based on these tests must also be made with
consideration of the constructs that are being measured. Clinical decisions based on
such outcomes must account for the context of the scale used and its measurement
properties. Chapter 6 will focus on these issues in greater detail.
Health Condition
(disorder or d isease)
1
1 I
Functioning
Disability
+ Facilitators
Environmental Personal
Factors Factors
Contextual
Factors
- Barriers/Hindrances
B
FIG U RE 1.1 A. The model of disablement, as described by Nagi,44 showing the relationship among
pathology, impairments, functional limitations and disability. B. The World Health Organization Interna
tional Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF)so Each component of the ICF can be
expressed in positive or negative terms, as shown. Capacity and performance are two elements of the
Activity and Participation domains.
mortality and disease. It shifts the focus to "life," and describes how people live with
their health condition. This context makes the model useful for health promotion as
well as illness and disability. The ICF has been evaluated in a variety of patient popu
lations, cultures, age groups and diagnoses.52-58
Each of the components of the ICF can be described in positive or negative terms, as
shown in Figure 1.1B.59 For example, body systems or anatomical structures will be intact
or impaired. Individuals will be able to perform specific activities or they will demon
strate difficulties in executing specific tasks, described as activity limitations. They will
either be able to participate in life roles or they may experience participation restrictions.
Environmental and personal factors will either facilitate function or create barriers.
The activity and participation domains can be further conceptualized in terms of an
individual's capacity to act versus actual performance; that is, what one is able to do ver
sus what one actually does. These elements are defined with reference to the environ
ment in which assessment is taking place. Performance relates to the "current" or actual
environment in which the individual participates. Capacity relates to a "standardized"
optimum environment, which may be real or assumed. According to the ICF, the gap
between capacity and performance reflects the impact of the environment on an indi
vidual's ability to perform.59 Therefore, an individual with rheumatoid arthritis may
have joint deformities (impairments), have difficulty walking (activity limitation) and
be unable to perform work activities because of inappropriate height of furniture (par
ticipation restriction and environmental barrier). The individual may have the capacity
to do the work, but cannot perform the activities in the current environment. However,
if the office environment is modified, this individual may be able to perform activities
without pain, and therefore, her performance and participation level will improve.
Both the ICF and the disablement model provide a framework for identifying
which outcome measures are relevant for specific clients or patients. Health status and
functional questionnaires present one avenue for examining outcomes. We must also
continue to look at changes in impairments and basic functional activities, such as gait
or the performance of a particular functional or occupational task, to provide a com
plete picture of improvement. Data on psychological and social aspects of health must
also be collected, including the impact of the environment. As we become more
involved in the documentation of outcomes it is imperative that we understand the
measurement properties of the tools we use so they can be applied and interpreted
properly (see Chapters 4-6).
EVIDENCE-BASED PRACTICE
Stressing the importance of objective documentation in clinical research does not mean
that practice can be reduced to a finite science. There is no pure "scientific method" that
can account for the influence of experience, intuition and creativity in clinical judgment.
Making clinical decisions in the face of uncertainty and variability is part of the "art" of
clinical practice. We cannot, however, dissociate the art from the science that supports
it. The framework of evidence-based practice (EBP) helps to put this in perspective.
Sackett and colleagues60 have provided a popular definition of evidence-based
practice as the "conscientious, explicit and judicious use of current best evidence in
making decisions about the care of individual patients." EBP is also described as the
CHAPTER 1 • A Concept ofClinical Research 9
"integration of best research evidence with our clinical expertise and our patient's
61
unique values and circumstances. " Embedded in this definition is an important con
cept, that evidence is applied in a process of clinical decision making within the context
of a patient or clinical scenario.It emphasizes that research literature provides one, but
not the only, source of information for decision making. Perhaps more aptly called
evidence-based decision making, this process requires considering all relevant information
and then making choices that provide the best opportunity for a successful outcome
given the patient-care environment and available resources.
The process of EBP starts by asking a relevant clinical question.The question pro
vides a direction for decision making related to a patient's diagnosis, prognosis or inter
vention. Questions may also relate to etiology of the patient's problem, the validity of
clinical guidelines, safety or cost-effectiveness of care. It should not be surprising that
the ability to formulate a good question is essential to finding a relevant answer! It is
not a general question, but one that focuses specifically on the characteristics of the
patient and issues related to his or her management. The acronym PICO has been used
to represent the components of a good clinical question: Patients, Intervention,
Comparison, Outcome (see Box 1.1).
The question leads to a search for the best evidence that can contribute to a decision
about the patient's care.The terms defined within the PICO format can be used as key
words in a search for literature.The concept of "best evidence " is important, as it refers
to the availability of valid and relevant research information. Clinicians must be able to
search and access literature (see Chapter 31), critically appraise studies to determine if
they meet validity standards, and then determine if and how research results apply to a
given clinical situation. A working knowledge of research design and statistics is impor
tant for clinicians to use this information wisely. For instance, in describing the Hypothesis
Oriented Algorithm for Clinicians II (HOAC II), Rothstein et al.62 have made the
assessment of evidence a clearly identifiable part of the decision making process.
This assessment, however, must be made by a clinician who then integrates his or
her own clinical judgment and experience with the patient's needs and unique charac
teristics to make a decision about the patient's care (see Figure 1.2). This decision will
also take into account the current circumstances of care, including available equip
ment, space, time, the patient's comorbidities and the clinical setting. Even Sackett
acknowledges that
. . . without clinical experience, practice risks being tyrannized by evidence, for even
excellent external advice may be inapplicable to or inappropriate for an individual
63
patient. (p.vi)
16 �8
There are many useful journal articles,* books and websites that describe the con
cepts related to EBP, including interpretation of statistical outcomes. We will include
"See the series of articles published by the Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group in the Journal of the Ameri
can Medical Association from 1992 to 2001. These papers can also be found at <http: I /www.cche.net/usersguides/
life.asp> Accessed January 15, 2006. See also articles in Evidence-Based Medicine Reviews, including the Cochrane
Database of Systematic Reviews, the ACP Journal Club and the Database of Abstracts of Reviews and Effects
(DARE).
10 PART I • Fo u n d a t i o n s of C l i n i c a l Research
How one asks a question to guide practice will depend on what one needs
to know. As obvious as that seems, it is useful to consider what Straus et al61
have termed background and foreground questions. A background question
refers to general knowledge about a disorder or intervention, often relating to
etiology, pathophysiology, or prognosis. For example, in the case of Mrs. Jones
we might be interested in learning more about the causes of balance disorders
in stroke, or the prognosis of balance and gait in stroke survivors.
A foreground question relates to specific information that will guide
management of the patient, typically addressing diagnosis or intervention.
Such questions will have four components.
Clinical
Question
Patient Management
FIGURE 1 .2 The components of evidence-based practice as a framework for c l inical decision making.
many of these concepts throughout this text as we discuss research designs, statistical
analyses and the use of published material for clinical decision making. The success of
evidence-based practice will continue to be assessed as we examine outcomes based on
use of published guidelines and treatment effects.
and decision making. How do we decide which test to perform, which intervention will
be most successful, which patients have the best chance of responding positively to a
given treatment? Oftentimes clinical problems can be solved on the basis of scientific
evidence, but in many situations such evidence does not exist or is not directly applica
ble. It is important, then, to consider how we come to "know" things, and how we can
appropriately integrate what we know with available evidence as we are faced with
clinical problems (see Figure 1.3).
Tradition
A s members o f an organized culture, w e accept certain truths a s givens. Something is
thought to be true simply because people have always known it to be true. Within
such a belief system, we inherit knowledge and accept precedent, without need for
external validation. Rehabilitation science is steeped in tradition as a guide to practice
and as a foundation for treatment. We have all been faced with clinical, administrative
or educational practices that are continued just because "that is the way they have
always been done."
Tradition is useful in that it offers a common foundation for communication and
interaction within a society or profession. Therefore, each generation is not respon
sible for reformulating an understanding of the world through the development of
new concepts. Nevertheless, tradition as a source of knowledge poses a serious prob
lem in clinical science because many traditions have not been evaluated for their
validity, nor have they been tested against potentially better alternatives. Sole
reliance on precedent as a reason for making clinical choices generally stifles the
search for new information, and may perpetuate an idea even when contrary evi
dence is available.
Scientific Method
Authority
We frequently find ourselves turning to specialized sources of authority for answers to
questions. If we have a problem with finances, we seek the services of an accountant. If
we need legal advice for purchasing a home, we hire a real estate lawyer. In the med
ical profession we regularly pursue the expertise of specialists for specific medical prob
lems. Given the rapid accumulation of knowledge and technical advances and the need
to make decisions in situations where we are not expert, it is most reasonable and nat
ural to place our trust in those who are authoritative on an issue by virtue of special
ized training or experience.
Authorities often become known as expert sources of information based on their suc
cess, experience or reputation. When an authority states that something is true, we accept
it. As new techniques are developed, we often jump to use them without demanding evi
dence of their scientific merit, ignoring potential limitations, even when the underly
ing theoretical rationale is unclear.69'70 Too often we find ourselves committed to one
approach over others, perhaps based on what we were taught, because the technique is
empirically useful. This is a necessary approach in situations where scientific evidence is
unavailable; however, we jeopardize our professional responsibility if these techniques
are not critically analyzed and if their effects are not scientifically documented.
The danger of uncritical reliance on authoritative canon is well illustrated by the
unyielding belief in the medical tenets of Galen (A.D. 138-201), whose teachings were
accepted without challenge in the Western world for 16 centuries. When physicians in
the 16th and 17th centuries began dissecting human organs, they were not always able
to validate Galen's statements. His defenders, in strict loyalty and unwilling to doubt
the authority, wrote that if the new findings did not agree with Galen's teachings, the
discrepancy should be attributed to the fact that nature had changed!71
never be tested. Therefore, a clinician using this method should never conclude that the
''best" solution has been found.
Logical Reasoning
Many clinical problems are solved through the use of logical thought processes. Logi
cal reasoning as a method of knowing combines personal experience, intellectual facul
ties, and formal systems of thought. It is a systematic process that has been used
throughout history as a way of answering questions and acquiring new knowledge.
Two distinctive types of reasoning are used as a means of understanding and organiz
ing phenomena: deductive and inductive reasoning (see Figure 1.4).
Deductive Reasoning
Deductive reasoning is characterized by the acceptance of a general proposition, or
premise, and the subsequent inferences that can be drawn in specific cases. The
ancient Greek philosophers introduced this systematic method for drawing conclu
sions by using a series of three interrelated statements, called a syllogism, containing
(1) a major premise, (2) a minor premise and (3) a conclusion. A classic syllogism will
serve as an example:
1. All living things must die. [major premise]
2. Man is a living thing. [minor premise]
3. Therefore, all men must die. [conclusion]
In deductive reasoning, if the premises are true, then it follows that the conclusion
must be truy Scientists use deductive logic by beginning with known scientific prin
ciples or generalizations, and deducing specific assertions that are relevant to a spe
cific question. The observed facts will cause the scientist to confirm, to reject or to
modify the conclusion. The greater the accuracy of the premise, the greater the accu
racy of the conclusion.
�/J
I
�
I
,lJ
�
�
./ General Conclusion
I see increasing reason to believe that the view formed some time
back as to the origin of the Makonde bush is the correct one. I have
no doubt that it is not a natural product, but the result of human
occupation. Those parts of the high country where man—as a very
slight amount of practice enables the eye to perceive at once—has not
yet penetrated with axe and hoe, are still occupied by a splendid
timber forest quite able to sustain a comparison with our mixed
forests in Germany. But wherever man has once built his hut or tilled
his field, this horrible bush springs up. Every phase of this process
may be seen in the course of a couple of hours’ walk along the main
road. From the bush to right or left, one hears the sound of the axe—
not from one spot only, but from several directions at once. A few
steps further on, we can see what is taking place. The brush has been
cut down and piled up in heaps to the height of a yard or more,
between which the trunks of the large trees stand up like the last
pillars of a magnificent ruined building. These, too, present a
melancholy spectacle: the destructive Makonde have ringed them—
cut a broad strip of bark all round to ensure their dying off—and also
piled up pyramids of brush round them. Father and son, mother and
son-in-law, are chopping away perseveringly in the background—too
busy, almost, to look round at the white stranger, who usually excites
so much interest. If you pass by the same place a week later, the piles
of brushwood have disappeared and a thick layer of ashes has taken
the place of the green forest. The large trees stretch their
smouldering trunks and branches in dumb accusation to heaven—if
they have not already fallen and been more or less reduced to ashes,
perhaps only showing as a white stripe on the dark ground.
This work of destruction is carried out by the Makonde alike on the
virgin forest and on the bush which has sprung up on sites already
cultivated and deserted. In the second case they are saved the trouble
of burning the large trees, these being entirely absent in the
secondary bush.
After burning this piece of forest ground and loosening it with the
hoe, the native sows his corn and plants his vegetables. All over the
country, he goes in for bed-culture, which requires, and, in fact,
receives, the most careful attention. Weeds are nowhere tolerated in
the south of German East Africa. The crops may fail on the plains,
where droughts are frequent, but never on the plateau with its
abundant rains and heavy dews. Its fortunate inhabitants even have
the satisfaction of seeing the proud Wayao and Wamakua working
for them as labourers, driven by hunger to serve where they were
accustomed to rule.
But the light, sandy soil is soon exhausted, and would yield no
harvest the second year if cultivated twice running. This fact has
been familiar to the native for ages; consequently he provides in
time, and, while his crop is growing, prepares the next plot with axe
and firebrand. Next year he plants this with his various crops and
lets the first piece lie fallow. For a short time it remains waste and
desolate; then nature steps in to repair the destruction wrought by
man; a thousand new growths spring out of the exhausted soil, and
even the old stumps put forth fresh shoots. Next year the new growth
is up to one’s knees, and in a few years more it is that terrible,
impenetrable bush, which maintains its position till the black
occupier of the land has made the round of all the available sites and
come back to his starting point.
The Makonde are, body and soul, so to speak, one with this bush.
According to my Yao informants, indeed, their name means nothing
else but “bush people.” Their own tradition says that they have been
settled up here for a very long time, but to my surprise they laid great
stress on an original immigration. Their old homes were in the
south-east, near Mikindani and the mouth of the Rovuma, whence
their peaceful forefathers were driven by the continual raids of the
Sakalavas from Madagascar and the warlike Shirazis[47] of the coast,
to take refuge on the almost inaccessible plateau. I have studied
African ethnology for twenty years, but the fact that changes of
population in this apparently quiet and peaceable corner of the earth
could have been occasioned by outside enterprises taking place on
the high seas, was completely new to me. It is, no doubt, however,
correct.
The charming tribal legend of the Makonde—besides informing us
of other interesting matters—explains why they have to live in the
thickest of the bush and a long way from the edge of the plateau,
instead of making their permanent homes beside the purling brooks
and springs of the low country.
“The place where the tribe originated is Mahuta, on the southern
side of the plateau towards the Rovuma, where of old time there was
nothing but thick bush. Out of this bush came a man who never
washed himself or shaved his head, and who ate and drank but little.
He went out and made a human figure from the wood of a tree
growing in the open country, which he took home to his abode in the
bush and there set it upright. In the night this image came to life and
was a woman. The man and woman went down together to the
Rovuma to wash themselves. Here the woman gave birth to a still-
born child. They left that place and passed over the high land into the
valley of the Mbemkuru, where the woman had another child, which
was also born dead. Then they returned to the high bush country of
Mahuta, where the third child was born, which lived and grew up. In
course of time, the couple had many more children, and called
themselves Wamatanda. These were the ancestral stock of the
Makonde, also called Wamakonde,[48] i.e., aborigines. Their
forefather, the man from the bush, gave his children the command to
bury their dead upright, in memory of the mother of their race who
was cut out of wood and awoke to life when standing upright. He also
warned them against settling in the valleys and near large streams,
for sickness and death dwelt there. They were to make it a rule to
have their huts at least an hour’s walk from the nearest watering-
place; then their children would thrive and escape illness.”
The explanation of the name Makonde given by my informants is
somewhat different from that contained in the above legend, which I
extract from a little book (small, but packed with information), by
Pater Adams, entitled Lindi und sein Hinterland. Otherwise, my
results agree exactly with the statements of the legend. Washing?
Hapana—there is no such thing. Why should they do so? As it is, the
supply of water scarcely suffices for cooking and drinking; other
people do not wash, so why should the Makonde distinguish himself
by such needless eccentricity? As for shaving the head, the short,
woolly crop scarcely needs it,[49] so the second ancestral precept is
likewise easy enough to follow. Beyond this, however, there is
nothing ridiculous in the ancestor’s advice. I have obtained from
various local artists a fairly large number of figures carved in wood,
ranging from fifteen to twenty-three inches in height, and
representing women belonging to the great group of the Mavia,
Makonde, and Matambwe tribes. The carving is remarkably well
done and renders the female type with great accuracy, especially the
keloid ornamentation, to be described later on. As to the object and
meaning of their works the sculptors either could or (more probably)
would tell me nothing, and I was forced to content myself with the
scanty information vouchsafed by one man, who said that the figures
were merely intended to represent the nembo—the artificial
deformations of pelele, ear-discs, and keloids. The legend recorded
by Pater Adams places these figures in a new light. They must surely
be more than mere dolls; and we may even venture to assume that
they are—though the majority of present-day Makonde are probably
unaware of the fact—representations of the tribal ancestress.
The references in the legend to the descent from Mahuta to the
Rovuma, and to a journey across the highlands into the Mbekuru
valley, undoubtedly indicate the previous history of the tribe, the
travels of the ancestral pair typifying the migrations of their
descendants. The descent to the neighbouring Rovuma valley, with
its extraordinary fertility and great abundance of game, is intelligible
at a glance—but the crossing of the Lukuledi depression, the ascent
to the Rondo Plateau and the descent to the Mbemkuru, also lie
within the bounds of probability, for all these districts have exactly
the same character as the extreme south. Now, however, comes a
point of especial interest for our bacteriological age. The primitive
Makonde did not enjoy their lives in the marshy river-valleys.
Disease raged among them, and many died. It was only after they
had returned to their original home near Mahuta, that the health
conditions of these people improved. We are very apt to think of the
African as a stupid person whose ignorance of nature is only equalled
by his fear of it, and who looks on all mishaps as caused by evil
spirits and malignant natural powers. It is much more correct to
assume in this case that the people very early learnt to distinguish
districts infested with malaria from those where it is absent.
This knowledge is crystallized in the
ancestral warning against settling in the
valleys and near the great waters, the
dwelling-places of disease and death. At the
same time, for security against the hostile
Mavia south of the Rovuma, it was enacted
that every settlement must be not less than a
certain distance from the southern edge of the
plateau. Such in fact is their mode of life at the
present day. It is not such a bad one, and
certainly they are both safer and more
comfortable than the Makua, the recent
intruders from the south, who have made USUAL METHOD OF
good their footing on the western edge of the CLOSING HUT-DOOR
plateau, extending over a fairly wide belt of
country. Neither Makua nor Makonde show in their dwellings
anything of the size and comeliness of the Yao houses in the plain,
especially at Masasi, Chingulungulu and Zuza’s. Jumbe Chauro, a
Makonde hamlet not far from Newala, on the road to Mahuta, is the
most important settlement of the tribe I have yet seen, and has fairly
spacious huts. But how slovenly is their construction compared with
the palatial residences of the elephant-hunters living in the plain.
The roofs are still more untidy than in the general run of huts during
the dry season, the walls show here and there the scanty beginnings
or the lamentable remains of the mud plastering, and the interior is a
veritable dog-kennel; dirt, dust and disorder everywhere. A few huts
only show any attempt at division into rooms, and this consists
merely of very roughly-made bamboo partitions. In one point alone
have I noticed any indication of progress—in the method of fastening
the door. Houses all over the south are secured in a simple but
ingenious manner. The door consists of a set of stout pieces of wood
or bamboo, tied with bark-string to two cross-pieces, and moving in
two grooves round one of the door-posts, so as to open inwards. If
the owner wishes to leave home, he takes two logs as thick as a man’s
upper arm and about a yard long. One of these is placed obliquely
against the middle of the door from the inside, so as to form an angle
of from 60° to 75° with the ground. He then places the second piece
horizontally across the first, pressing it downward with all his might.
It is kept in place by two strong posts planted in the ground a few
inches inside the door. This fastening is absolutely safe, but of course
cannot be applied to both doors at once, otherwise how could the
owner leave or enter his house? I have not yet succeeded in finding
out how the back door is fastened.