Search

Meta-analysis using individual participant data (IPD) is an important methodology in intervention research because it (a) increases accuracy and precision of estimates, (b) allows researchers to investigate mediators and moderators of treatment effects, and (c) makes use of extant data. IPD meta-analysis can be conducted either via a one-step approach that uses data from all studies simultaneously, or a two-step approach, which aggregates data for each study and then combines them in a traditional meta-analysis model. Unfortunately, there are no evidence-based guidelines for how best to approach IPD meta-analysis for count outcomes with many zeroes, such as alcohol use. We used simulation to compare the performance of four hurdle models (3 one-step and 1 two-step models) for zero-inflated count IPD, under realistic data conditions. Overall, all models yielded adequate coverage and bias for the treatment effect in the count portion of the model, across all data conditions. However, in the zero portion, the treatment effect was underestimated in most models and data conditions, especially when there were fewer studies. The performance of both one- and two-step approaches depended on the formulation of the treatment effects, suggesting a need to carefully consider model assumptions and specifications when using IPD. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Cuijpers et al. ([4]) argue that prior meta-analyses have categorized specific interventions into classes of treatments (e.g., behavioral, person-centered), and thus have not actually tested the efficacy of "specific treatments", which are what patients actually experience. In contrast, Cuijpers et al.'s meta-analysis deals with these categorization problems by avoiding broad classes of treatments and focusing on specific treatments (e.g., Beck's Cognitive Therapy). Cuijpers et al.'s ([4]) treatment specific approach assumes that Beck's cognitive therapy as taught and implemented in 1980 is the same as Beck's cognitive therapy as implemented in 2005. Rather than using within-study effects where treatments are directly compared, Cuijpers et al. used between-study effects and compared treatments across studies. [Extracted from the article]

The Lie (L) scale of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) is widely regarded as a measure of conscious attempts to deny common human foibles and to present oneself in an unrealistically positive light. At the same time, the current MMPI-2 manual states that "traditional" and religious backgrounds can account for elevated L scale scores as high as 65T-79T, thereby tempering impression management interpretations for faith-based individuals. To assess the validity of the traditional background hypothesis, we reviewed 11 published studies that employed the original MMPI with religious samples and found that only 1 obtained an elevated mean L score. We then conducted a meta-analysis of 12 published MMPI-2 studies in which we compared L scores of religious samples to the test normative group. The meta-analysis revealed large between-study heterogeneity (I2 = 87.1), L scale scores for religious samples that were somewhat higher but did not approach the upper limits specified in the MMPI-2 manual, and an overall moderate effect size (d¯ = 0.54, p < .001; 95% confidence interval [0.37, 0.70]). Our analyses indicated that religious-group membership accounts, on average, for elevations on L of about 5 t-score points. Whether these scores reflect conscious "fake good" impression management or religious-based virtuousness remains unanswered. (PsycINFO Database Record [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Meta-analysis has played a key role in psychotherapy research for nearly 40 years. There is now an opportunity for technology to assist with transparent and open meta-analyses. The authors describe an open-access database of effect sizes and a corresponding web application for performing meta-analyses, viewing the database, and downloading effect sizes. The initial databases provide effect sizes for family therapy for delinquency studies and for alliance-outcome correlations in individual psychotherapy. Disciplinary norms about data sharing and openness are shifting. Furthermore, meta-analyses of behavioral interventions have been criticized for lacking transparency and openness. The database and web application are aimed at facilitating data sharing and improving the transparency of meta-analyses. The authors conclude with a discussion of future directions for the database. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This meta-analysis summarizes results from k = 24 studies comparing either Brief Strategic Family Therapy, Functional Family Therapy, Multidimensional Family Therapy, or Multisystemic Therapy to either treatment-as-usual, an alternative therapy, or a control group in the treatment of adolescent substance abuse and delinquency. Additionally, the authors reviewed and applied three advanced meta-analysis methods including influence analysis, multivariate meta-analysis, and publication bias analyses. The results suggested that as a group the four family therapies had statistically significant, but modest effects as compared to treatment-as-usual ( d = 0.21; k = 11) and as compared to alternative therapies ( d = 0.26; k = 11). The effect of family therapy compared to control was larger ( d = 0.70; k = 4) but was not statistically significant probably because of low power. There was insufficient evidence to determine whether the various models differed in their effectiveness relative to each other. Influence analyses suggested that three studies had a large effect on aggregate effect sizes and heterogeneity statistics. Moderator and multivariate analyses were largely underpowered but will be useful as this literature grows. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Little is known about whether cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) or pharmacotherapy is relatively more advantageous for depressive versus anxiety disorders. Methods: We conducted a meta-analysis wherein we searched electronic databases and references to select randomized controlled studies comparing CBT and pharmacotherapy, with or without placebo, in adults with major depressive or anxiety disorders. The primary effect size was calculated from disorder-specific outcome measures as the difference between CBT and pharmacotherapy outcomes (i.e., positive effect size favors CBT; negative effect size favors pharmacotherapy). Results: Twenty-one anxiety ( = 1,266) and twenty-one depression ( = 2,027) studies comparing medication to CBT were included. Including all anxiety disorders, the overall effect size was.25 (95% CI: −0.02, 0.55, =.07). Effects for panic disorder significantly favored CBT over medications (.50, 95% CI: 0.02, 0.98). Obsessive-compulsive disorder showed similar effects-sizes, though not statistically significant (.49, 95% CI: −0.11, 1.09). Medications showed a nonsignificant advantage for social anxiety disorder (−.22, 95% CI: −0.50, 0.06). The overall effect size for depression studies was.05 (95% CI: −0.09, 0.19), with no advantage for medications or CBT. Pooling anxiety disorder and depression studies, the omnibus comparison of the relative difference between anxiety and depression in effectiveness for CBT versus pharmacotherapy pointed to a nonsignificant advantage for CBT in anxiety versus depression ( =.14, 95% CI: −0.14, 0.43). Conclusions: On balance, the evidence presented here indicates that there are at most very modest differences in effects of CBT versus pharmacotherapy in the treatment of anxiety versus depressive disorders. There seems to be larger differences the anxiety disorders in terms of their relative responsiveness to pharmacotherapy versus CBT. Depression and Anxiety, 2011. © 2011 Wiley-Liss, Inc. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this meta-analytic study, the authors examined the efficacy of marriage and relationship education (MRE) on 2 common outcomes: relationship quality and communication skills. A thorough search produced 86 codable reports that yielded 117 studies and more than 500 effect sizes. The effect sizes for relationship quality for experimental studies ranged from d = .30 to .36, while the communication skills effect sizes ranged from d = .43 to .45. Quasi-experimental studies generated smaller effect sizes, but these appeared to be due to pretest group differences. Moderate-dosage programs produced larger effect sizes than did low-dosage programs. For communication skills, published studies had larger effects than those of unpublished studies at follow-up; there were no publication differences for relationship quality. There was no evidence of a gender difference. Unfortunately, a lack of racial/ethnic and economic diversity in the samples prevented reliable conclusions about the effectiveness of MRE for disadvantaged couples, a crucial deficit in the body of research. In addition, intervention outcomes important to policy makers, such as relationship stability and aggression, rarely have been addressed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This meta-analysis summarizes results from 30 randomized experiments that compare behavioral marital therapy with no-treatment control with distressed couples. Results showed that behavioral marital therapy is significantly more effective than no treatment (d = .585). Although behavioral marital therapy research studies tend to be conducted under conditions that are less clinically representative than other samples of studies, representativeness was not significantly related to outcome. However, evidence also suggested that publication bias may exist in this literature whereby small sample studies with small effects are systematically missing compared with other studies. This bias may inflate the effects of behavioral marital therapies reported in previous meta-analyses, though we also explore a number of alternative explanations for this small sample bias. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article briefly reviews 20 meta-analyses of marital and family interventions. These meta-analyses support the efficacy of both MFT for distressed couples, and martial and family enrichment. Those effects are slightly reduced at follow-up, but still significant. Differences among kinds of marital and family interventions tend to be small. MFT produce clinically significant results in 40-50% of those treated, but the effects of MFT in clinically representative settings have not been much studied. The article also introduces the concept of meta-analytically supported treatments (MASTs), which are treatments that meet certain criteria for efficacy in meta-analysis, and which remedy certain problems in the empirically supported treatment (EST) literature. The article concludes with recommendations for doing better meta-analyses. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article comments on the quality of research concerning secondary reading practices conducted by researchers Victoria G. Ridgeway, Pamela J. Dunston, Gaoyin Qian. According to the author, Ridgeway and colleagues calculated the percentages of design flaws and violations of various assumptions across the 98 studies. The researchers provide a microanalysis of the methodology of teaching and learning strategy research by examining the extent to which a body of research, as a whole, conforms to the conventions of a particular paradigm. From the author's viewpoint, better research is empiricism that solves real problems or broadens ones collective knowledge base. The best of educational research influences students, teachers and policy makers in ways that are constructive with respect to societal goals.

This meta-analysis probes into previous research substantiating the positive effects of marriage and relationship education (MRE) on couples' communication skills. We reviewed 97 MRE research reports that yielded 143 distinct evaluation studies. We found modest evidence that MRE functions both as a universal prevention and as a selective or indicated prevention. That is, MRE demonstrates program effects at longer term follow-ups for well-functioning couples and at postassessment and shorter term follow-ups for more distressed couples. In addition, we found that observational assessments produced larger effects than self-report assessments, although interpreting the meaning of this difference is difficult. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]