Generalized single-case randomization tests: Flexible analyses for a variety of situations.

[Correction Notice: An erratum for this article was reported in Vol 14(4) of School Psychology Quarterly (see record 2007-17925-001). (1) In Table 5 (p. 76), in the cell associated with the third row and third column, the upper value of 18.3 should be 18.73. (2) On p. 81, in the section titled "Simultaneous Start-Point Randomization for Matched Pairs of Units," the sentence beginning in line 10 should read: "With k? acceptable start points for the first pair and k? for the second, there would be k?k? summed sums and null hypothesis-compatible summed differences for the randomization distribution to test Rgen and Rcomp, respectively (as indicated in the Appendix, p. 89)."] A general class of single-case statistical procedures, derived from previously developed nonparametric randomization tests, is presented. These procedures are widely applicable in behavioral and educational research contexts in which only a few experimental "units" (individuals, small groups, or classrooms) are the recipients of one or more experimental treatments or interventions. Specifically illustrated are designs that focus on both the general and comparative effectiveness of alternative interventions (including control/placebo treatments), multiple units with differentiable characteristics (i.e., intervention by unit characteristic interactions), and multiple outcome measures (i.e., intervention by outcome measure interactions). Also provided are operational modifications that enhance the internal validity of studies incorporating single-case randomization-based analyses. Appropriate cautions and issues surrounding the use of these procedures are included. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Regulated randomization: A potentially sharper analytical tool for the multiple-baseline design.

A dual-randomization procedure, regulated randomization, is proposed for behavioral and educational interventions that incorporate the logic of single-case multiple-baseline designs. The new approach is sharper conceptually and methodologically than previously developed approaches in that regulated randomization maintains the basic integrity of the multiple-baseline design (namely, the systematically staggered introduction of the intervention across the experimental units) while being statistically practicable with fewer units (N?     

Enhancing the scientific credibility of single-case intervention research: Randomization to the rescue.

In recent years, single-case designs have increasingly been used to establish an empirical basis for evidence-based interventions and techniques in a variety of disciplines, including psychology and education. Although traditional single-case designs have typically not met the criteria for a randomized controlled trial relative to conventional multiple-participant experimental designs, there are procedures that can be adopted to create a randomized experiment in this class of experimental design. Our two major purposes in writing this article were (a) to review the various types of single-case design that have been and can be used in psychological and educational intervention research and (b) to incorporate randomized experimental schemes into these designs, thereby improving them so that investigators can draw more valid conclusions from their research. For each traditional single-case design type reviewed, we provide illustrations of how various forms of randomization can be introduced into the basic design structure. We conclude by recommending that traditional single-case intervention designs be transformed into more scientifically credible randomized single-case intervention designs whenever the research conditions under consideration permit. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

"Cancer-related fatigue: A systematic and meta-analytic review of non-pharmacological therapies for cancer patients": Correction to Kangas, Bovbjerg, and Montgomery (2008).

Reports an error in "Cancer-related fatigue: A systematic and meta-analytic review of non-pharmacological therapies for cancer patients" by Maria Kangas, Dana H. Bovbjerg and Guy H. Montgomery (Psychological Bulletin, 2008[Sep], Vol 134[5], 700-741). The URL to the Supplemental Materials for the article is listed incorrectly in two places in the text. The incorrect listings appear on p. 704 (in the last two lines of the third paragraph) and on p. 705 (in the third and fourth lines of the first paragraph in the second column). The correct URL for the Supplemental Materials is http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0012825.supp, which is provided on the first page of the article beneath the abstract. (The following abstract of the original article appeared in record 2008-11487-005.) Cancer-related fatigue (CRF) is a significant clinical problem for more than 10 million adults diagnosed with cancer each year worldwide. No "gold standard" treatment presently exists for CRF. To provide a guide for future research to improve the treatment of CRF, the authors conducted the most comprehensive combined systematic and meta-analytic review of the literature to date on non-pharmacological (psychosocial and exercise) interventions to ameliorate CRF and associated symptoms (vigor/vitality) in adults with cancer, based on 119 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-RCT studies. Meta-analyses conducted on 57 RCTs indicated that exercise and psychological interventions provided reductions in CRF, with no significant differences between these 2 major types of interventions considered as a whole. Specifically, multimodal exercise and walking programs, restorative approaches, supportive-expressive, and cognitive-behavioral psychosocial interventions show promising potential for ameliorating CRF. The results also suggest that vigor and vitality are distinct phenomena from CRF with regard to responsiveness to intervention. With improved methodological approaches, further research in this area may soon provide clinicians with effective strategies for reducing CRF and enhancing the lives of millions of cancer patients and survivors. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Erratum to Simonton.

Reports an error in the original article ("Cross-Sectional Time-Series Experiments: Some Suggested Statistical Analyses") by Dean Keith Simonton (Psychological Bulletin, 1977[May], Vol 84[3], 489-502). On page 491, the second line of Footnote 1 reads: "chap. 3; Overall & Klett, 1972, Pt. 5). Here, dummy. . . ." It should read: "variables in multiple regression, including dummy. . . ." On page 492, Equation 2 reads: "Yt = b?+ b?Xt + b?t + b?Xt." It should read: "Yt = b?Xt + b?t + b?Xtt." On page 493, the second sentence in Paragraph 2 reads: "Since t = 0 at the moment of intervention, b? is the expected mean value of Yt across all cases just prior to the intervention." It should read: "Since t = 0 at the moment of intervention, b? is the expected mean value of Yt across all cases just prior to the intervention." On page 495, the first sentence in Paragraph 5 reads: "Coefficient b? estimates an interaction effect, namely the difference between the intercept of the postintervention control group (i.e., b?) and the intercept of the postintervention experimental group." It should read: "Coefficient b? estimates an interaction effect, namely the difference between the intercept of the postintervention control group (i.e., b? + b?) and the intercept of the postintervention experimental group." (The following abstract of this article originally appeared in record 1978-00178-001.) In the past, statistical analyses for time-series experiments have usually operated with a single-case model, thereby limiting the general applicability of the designs. In this article, alternative analytical procedures are developed for cross-sectional time-series in which the sample size is large and the number of observations per case is relatively small. Interrupted time series, equivalent time samples, and multiple time series are all treated within a multiple regression framework. A generalized least squares estimation procedure is outlined as a more suitable alternative to the G. E. Box and G. M. Jenkins (1970) approach. Some of the special advantages of the designs are briefly discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Joining science and application: Ethical challenges for researchers and practitioners.

The Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct (American Psychological Association [APA], 1992) stresses the importance of a scientific base for professional practice and implementation of research procedures that protect participant welfare. This article examines 3 ethical concerns flowing from the science-practice relationship: (1) Does current research provide a scientific base for psychological interventions? (2) Do psychologists have an empirical foundation for addressing the needs of diverse populations? (3) Is the welfare of psychologically vulnerable research participants protected? A survey of 323 articles published in APA journals during 1991 indicates the need to increase the scientific evaluation of psychological treatments, the documentation of client and practitioner characteristics as they relate to service delivery, and the enlistment of practitioners in referral procedures for research participants in need of psychological treatment. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

The safer choices project: methodological issues in school-based health promotion intervention research

Randomized trials of school-based health promotion programs present unique design and analytical issues not widely discussed in the research literature. This article describes the Safer Choices study--a school-based program for prevention of HIV, other sexually transmitted diseases, and pregnancy--to illustrate critical methodological issues involved in large-scale, school-based intervention trials, particularly those evaluating interventions with a school-wide focus. The issues presented are: 1) comparability of the intervention and control groups even when few units are randomized; 2) factors that affect the decision to use a cohort or cross-sectional design; and 3) appropriate analysis strategy when the unit of randomization and intervention is at the school level, but observations are at the student level.     

"Acceptability and availability of harm-reduction interventions for drug abuse in American substance abuse treatment agencies": Correction to Rosenberg and Phillips (2003).

Reports an error in "Acceptability and availability of harm-reduction interventions for drug abuse in American substance abuse treatment agencies" by Harold Rosenberg and Kristina T. Phillips (Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 2003[Sep], Vol 17[3], 203-210). On page 208, the first sentence in the note of Table 4 incorrectly reads as follows: "Numbers in parentheses are ns of respondents who provided an 'other' reason for this specific intervention." The sentence should read as follows: "Numbers in parentheses are ns of respondents whose agencies do not offer this intervention." (The following abstract of the original article appeared in record 2003-07737-003.) This study assessed acceptability, availability, and reasons for nonavailability of interventions designed to prevent drug use related harm by substituting pharmaceuticals for illicit drugs; facilitating detoxification; and reducing the occurrence of HIV transmission, relapse, and opiate overdose. A survey was mailed to a sample of 500 randomly selected American substance abuse treatment agencies. Of 435 potentially eligible respondents, 222 (51%) returned usable data. A subset of interventions--including harm reduction education, cue exposure therapy, needle exchange, substitute opiate prescribing, various detoxification regimes, and complementary therapies--were rated as somewhat or completely acceptable by 50% or more of the respondents. Regardless of their acceptability, listed interventions were generally not available from responding agencies; respondents typically attributed unavailability to lack of resources and inconsistency of an intervention with agency philosophy. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Kinds of patients

The basic goal of health outcomes research is to identify the kinds of patients who do (or do not) benefit substantially from specified medical or surgical treatments and procedures. Similarly, clinicians must determine whether particular patients are the kinds of patients who do (or do not) benefit from specified interventions. Such a kinds-based approach to clinical practice is often resisted, however, when physicians are asked to standardize their practices based on the results of health outcome data. In such settings, clinicians often assert that "every patient is unique". The present paper explores the coherence of this claim. In particular, I examine the applicability of the philosophical notion of natural kinds to a kinds-based approach to clinical research and practice. I conclude that the claim of patient uniqueness is misguided. Two key difficulties with a kinds-based approach are examined: the problems associated with (1) assigning single-case probabilities and (2) stereotyping and discrimination.     

"The place of facts in a world of values: Subject and object in a postmodern world": Errata.

Reports an error in the original article by R. J. Smith (Journal of Philosophical and Theoretical Psychology, 2001[Fall], 21[2], 153-172). On pages 160, 161, 166, and 167 the subject to object relationship was reported at "S/O". The corrected representation is "S?O". (The following abstract of this article originally appeared in record 2002-10964-004.) The value-fact or subject-object split (S-O) recently defended by H. H. Kendler (1999) as necessary for a scientific psychology to establish facts, was rejected by Gestalt psychology as reducing the person to object status. The Gestalt solution correlating principles of perceptual organization with corresponding features of the object world (S/O) has however answered poorly to the vast cultural differences found in values. Communal/dialectical psychology in agreement with a postmodern worldview, treats facts as intrinsically value-laden social constructions mediated by a society's particular social relations (S?O) Examples of fact ambiguity are illustrated, and S?O is recommended as ontologically preferable for psychology as social science and for turn-of-the-millenium psycho-ecology. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Treatment integrity in psychotherapy research: Analysis of the studies and examination of the associated factors.

Treatment integrity refers to the degree to which an intervention is delivered as intended. Two studies evaluated the adequacy of treatment integrity procedures (including establishing, assessing, evaluating, and reporting integrity; therapist treatment adherence; and therapist competence) implemented in psychotherapy research, as well as predictors of their implementation. Randomized controlled trials of psychosocial interventions published in 6 influential psychological and psychiatric journals were reviewed and coded for treatment integrity implementation. Results indicate that investigations that systematically addressed treatment integrity procedures are virtually absent in the literature. Treatment integrity was adequately addressed for only 3.50% of the evaluated psychosocial interventions. Journal of publication and treatment approach predicted integrity implementation. Skill-building treatments (e.g., cognitive-behavioral) as compared with non-skill-building interventions (e.g., psychodynamic, nondirective counseling) were implemented with higher attention to integrity procedures. Guidelines for implementation of treatment integrity procedures need to be reevaluated. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Social validation: A unifying concept for school-based consultation research and practice.

Argues for a unifying concept for consultation research and practice based on the principle of social validity. Social validity refers to the assessment of the social significance of goals of intervention procedures, the social acceptability of interventions to attain those goals, and the evaluation of the social importance of the effects produced by those intervention procedures. Social validity deals with 3 fundamental, but highly complex questions faced by school psychologists in their practice of consultation each day: What should be changed, how should it be changed, and how does one know if it was effective? These issues are discussed and specific recommendations are made for the consideration of social validity in the assessment, design, implementation, and evaluation of consultation-based interventions in the schools. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

"Five methods for computing significant individual client change and improvement rates: Support for and individual growth curve approach." Correction to Speer and Greenbaum (1995).

Reports an error in "Five methods for computing significant individual client change and improvement rates: Support for an individual growth curve approach" by David C. Speer and Paul E. Greenbaum (Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 1995[Dec], Vol 63[6], 1044-1048). In this article, the values reported for hierarchical linear modeling (HLM) in Table 2 (p. 1046) were incorrect. This erratum provides the correct values and further information on the conclusion of the study. (The following abstract of the original article appeared in record 1996-00402-019.) Interest has been renewed in methods for determining individual client change. Currently, there are at least 4 pretreatment–posttreatment (pre-post) difference score methods. A 5th method, based on a random effects model and multiwave data, represents a growth curve approach and was hypothesized to be more sensitive to detecting significant (p?p?     

"Specificity of treatment effects: Cognitive therapy and relaxation for generalized anxiety and panic disorders": Correction.

Reports an error in "Specificity of treatment effects: Cognitive therapy and relaxation for generalized anxiety and panic disorders" by Jedidiah Siev and Dianne L. Chambless (Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 2007[Aug], Vol 75[4], 513-522). The individual measures were not listed in the domains labeled "Panic" and "Cognitive" for the ?st and Westling (1995) citation in Table 3. The corrected table is included, with the added text appearing in bold font. (The following abstract of the original article appeared in record 2007-11558-001.) The aim of this study was to address claims that among bona fide treatments no one is more efficacious than another by comparing the relative efficacy of cognitive therapy (CT) and relaxation therapy (RT) in the treatment of generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) and panic disorder without agoraphobia (PD). Two fixed-effects meta-analyses were conducted, for GAD and PD separately, to review the treatment outcome literature directly comparing CT with RT in the treatment of those disorders. For GAD, CT and RT were equivalent. For PD, CT, which included interoceptive exposure, outperformed RT on all panic-related measures, as well as on indices of clinically significant change. There is ample evidence that both CT and RT qualify as bona fide treatments for GAD and PD, for which they are efficacious and intended to be so. Therefore, the finding that CT and RT do not differ in the treatment of GAD, but do for PD, is evidence for the specificity of treatment to disorder, even for 2 treatments within a CBT class, and 2 disorders within an anxiety class. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

A comparison of conditional and unconditional randomization tests for highly stratified designs

An unconditional randomization procedure is proposed for use in highly stratified randomized experiments where the sample size assigned to each treatment cannot be fixed in advance. This procedure is contrasted to the usual conditional randomization procedure in which sample sizes assigned within randomization units are treated as fixed and randomization units without both treatments assigned are deleted. The unconditional procedure is shown to have superior power for the populations studied.     

"Marital interaction and depression": Correction to Schmaling and Jacobson.

Reports an error in "Marital interaction and depression" by Karen B. Schmaling and Neil S. Jacobson (Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 1990[Aug], Vol 99[3], 229-236). In this article, the measures in Table 1 were incorrectly listed. The third and fourth measures ought to read "Wife DAS" and "Husband DAS," respectively. (The following abstract of the original article appeared in record 1991-01471-001.) In this article, patterns of marital interaction as a function of depression and marital satisfaction are examined. The purpose of the study was to separate dysfunctional marital interaction patterns that were unique to depression from those that were associated with marital distress. The presence or absence of a depressed wife was crossed with level of marital satisfaction (distressed or nondistressed) to produce four groups of subject couples. Couples in which the wife was depressed exhibited more depressive behavior than did nondepressed couples, but only during discussion of a high conflict (as opposed to neutral) topic. Sex?×?Depression Level?×?Marital Satisfaction interactions were found for aggressive behavior: Depressed women in nondistressed relationships exhibited behavior that was characteristic of maritally distressed couples (high rates of aggression). In contrast, the husbands of these women exhibited behavior that one would expect in happily married couples (low rates of aggression). We failed to replicate previous findings that depressive behavior served a coercive function, although distressed couples, regardless of depression status, exhibited all the usual signs of negative dysfunctional interaction. [An erratum for this article will appear in Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 1990 (Nov), Vol 99(4). The measures in Table 1 were incorrectly listed in the original article.] (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Methodological and interpretive problems of single-case experimental designs.

Considers methodological and interpretive problems that frequently arise in single-case experiments. These designs are uniquely suited to evaluating treatment effects with individual clients. Although treatment is evaluated by comparing baseline and treatment phases, the manner in which this is accomplished varies as a function of the specific design. Typically, the comparison is replicated over time (ABAB design) or across different behaviors (multiple-baseline design). Several methodological problems frequently arise in single-case designs, such as deciding when to alter phases or conditions in the experiment, ensuring that the intervention is implemented, comparing alternative treatments unconfounded by sequence effects, and ensuring that data are collected reliably. Many interpretive problems of single-case designs stem from the criteria used to evaluate treatment. The ambiguity of these criteria, relative to statistical tests used in group designs, presents unique problems for evaluating treatment. (42 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Effects of interventions in health care settings on physical activity or cardiorespiratory fitness

INTRODUCTION: This paper reviews studies of physical activity interventions in health care settings to determine effects on physical activity and/or fitness and characteristics of successful interventions. METHODS: Studies testing interventions to promote physical activity in health care settings for primary prevention (patients without disease) and secondary prevention (patients with cardiovascular disease [CVD]) were identified by computerized search methods and reference lists of reviews and articles. Inclusion criteria included assignment to intervention and control groups, physical activity or cardiorespiratory fitness outcome measures, and, for the secondary prevention studies, measurement 12 or more months after randomization. The number of studies with statistically significant effects was determined overall as well as for studies testing interventions with various characteristics. RESULTS: Twelve studies of primary prevention were identified, seven of which were randomized. Three of four randomized studies with short-term measurement (4 weeks to 3 months after randomization), and two of five randomized studies with long-term measurement (6 months after randomization) achieved significant effect on physical activity. Twenty-four randomized studies of CVD secondary prevention were identified; 13 achieved significant effects on activity and/or fitness at twelve or more months. Studies with measurement at two time points showed decaying effects over time, particularly if the intervention were discontinued. Successful interventions contained multiple contacts, behavioral approaches, supervised exercise, provision of equipment, and/or continuing intervention. Many studies had methodologic problems such as low follow-up rates. CONCLUSION: Interventions in health care settings can increase physical activity for both primary and secondary prevention. Long-term effects are more likely with continuing intervention and multiple intervention components such as supervised exercise, provision of equipment, and behavioral approaches. Recommendations for additional research are given.     

Psychological Bulletin: Correction to Logan et al. (2002).

Reports errors in the original article by T. K. Logan et al (Psychological Bulletin, 2002, Vol 128[6], 851-885). Errors in Table 1 (p. 862), Table 2 (p. 863), and Table 4 (p. 865) are noted and corrected. Errors in the text on page 869 and page 871 also are corrected. (The following abstract of this article originally appeared in record record 2002-18663-001). This article is focused on examining social and contextual factors related to HIV-risk behavior for women. Specifically, this article has three main purposes: to review the literature on selected social and contextual factors that contribute to the risk for the heterosexual transmission of HIV and AIDS, to review and conduct a meta-analysis of HIV-prevention interventions targeting adult heterosexual populations, and to suggest future directions for HIV-prevention intervention research and practice. Results suggest that the HIV-prevention interventions reviewed for this article had little impact on sexual risk behavior, that social and contextual factors are often minimally addressed, and that there was a large gap between research and practice of HIV-prevention intervention. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Single-case design: A primer for play therapists.

Play therapy research is typically presented to practitioners as extensive and detailed studies that involve excessive controls of variables and large numbers of subjects in order to generalize findings. However, single-case design is one research design that involves concentration on data collection from few participants and involves clinical decision-making of the play therapist. This article defines single-case design and provides step-by-step suggestions for how to conduct a single-case design study. We also provide a specific example of single-case application to play therapy intervention and further discuss common problems in play therapy single-case design implementation. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)