4.3 Article Proceedings Paper

Empirically supported treatments or type I errors? Problems with the analysis of data from group-administered treatments

Journal

JOURNAL OF CONSULTING AND CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGY
Volume 73, Issue 5, Pages 924-935

Publisher

AMER PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOC
DOI: 10.1037/0022-006X.73.5.924

Keywords

group-administered treatments; empirically supported treatments; intraclass correlation; nested designs

Funding

  1. NIMH NIH HHS [F31MH73203-01] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

When treatments are administered in groups, clients interact in ways that lead to violations of a key assumption of most statistical analyses-the assumption of independence of observations. The resulting dependencies, when not properly accounted for, can increase Type I errors dramatically. Of the 33 studies of group-administered treatment on the empirically supported treatments list, none appropriately analyzed their data. The current authors provide corrections that can be applied to improper analyses. After the corrections, only 12.4% to 68.2% of tests that were originally reported as significant remained significant, depending on what assumptions were made about how large the dependencies among observations really are. Of the 33 studies, 6-19 studies no longer had any significant results after correction. The authors end by providing recommendations for researchers planning group-administered treatment research.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available