超越Jacobson和Truax:使用测量误差校正的多层次模型估计应对能力干预的临床意义轨迹

IF 3.8 2区 心理学 Q2 PSYCHIATRY
Antonio A. Morgan-López, Lissette M. Saavedra, Heather L. McDaniel, Stephen G. West, Nicholas S. Ialongo, Catherine P. Bradshaw, Alexandra T. Tonigan, Barrett W. Montgomery, Nicole P. Powell, Lixin Qu, Anna C. Yaros, John E. Lochman
{"title":"超越Jacobson和Truax:使用测量误差校正的多层次模型估计应对能力干预的临床意义轨迹","authors":"Antonio A. Morgan-López,&nbsp;Lissette M. Saavedra,&nbsp;Heather L. McDaniel,&nbsp;Stephen G. West,&nbsp;Nicholas S. Ialongo,&nbsp;Catherine P. Bradshaw,&nbsp;Alexandra T. Tonigan,&nbsp;Barrett W. Montgomery,&nbsp;Nicole P. Powell,&nbsp;Lixin Qu,&nbsp;Anna C. Yaros,&nbsp;John E. Lochman","doi":"10.1016/j.beth.2024.08.003","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Coping Power (CP) is a preventive intervention that focuses on reducing child externalizing problems. Although it is typically delivered in a group format (GCP), individually delivered CP (ICP) has produced greater mean reductions in externalizing problems. However, standard analysis of randomized trials loses individual-level information regarding which youth improve, fail to improve, or get worse, whereas clinically significant change (CSC) metrics capture information on individual change. The present study is a secondary analysis of an ICP/GCP trial (<em>N</em> = 360) that examines differences in CSC-based individual-level inferences on externalizing. A novel method for assessing CSC under measurement error-corrected multilevel modeling was used, overcoming three limitations of traditional CSC methods: (a) restriction to two time points, (b) use of total scores, and (c) assumption of constant reliability across time and participants. Because of concerns about Type II errors with all CSC methods, an individual-level effect size metric for CSC was also developed. Based on individualized Cohen’s <em>d</em> estimates, individual-level improvements in externalizing from 4th through 11th grades of <em>d</em> ≥ 0.5 were significantly greater in ICP (73%) versus GCP (45%). Further, GCP saw significantly higher percentages of youth with worsening of externalizing, underscoring concerns about diminished effects for GCP. Half of the sample had improvement that was not statistically significant but exceeded <em>d</em> ≥ 0.5, highlighting the susceptibility to Type II errors of CSC’s results based on statistical significance. An examination of ICP/GCP differences under advanced CSC analysis gives more nuanced information than conventional randomized controlled trial analysis and greater precision in estimating individual-level outcomes than standard CSC methodologies.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48359,"journal":{"name":"Behavior Therapy","volume":"56 3","pages":"Pages 513-528"},"PeriodicalIF":3.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Beyond Jacobson and Truax: Estimation of Clinical Significance Trajectories in the Coping Power Intervention Using Measurement Error-Corrected Multilevel Modeling\",\"authors\":\"Antonio A. Morgan-López,&nbsp;Lissette M. Saavedra,&nbsp;Heather L. McDaniel,&nbsp;Stephen G. West,&nbsp;Nicholas S. Ialongo,&nbsp;Catherine P. Bradshaw,&nbsp;Alexandra T. Tonigan,&nbsp;Barrett W. Montgomery,&nbsp;Nicole P. Powell,&nbsp;Lixin Qu,&nbsp;Anna C. Yaros,&nbsp;John E. Lochman\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.beth.2024.08.003\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><div>Coping Power (CP) is a preventive intervention that focuses on reducing child externalizing problems. Although it is typically delivered in a group format (GCP), individually delivered CP (ICP) has produced greater mean reductions in externalizing problems. However, standard analysis of randomized trials loses individual-level information regarding which youth improve, fail to improve, or get worse, whereas clinically significant change (CSC) metrics capture information on individual change. The present study is a secondary analysis of an ICP/GCP trial (<em>N</em> = 360) that examines differences in CSC-based individual-level inferences on externalizing. A novel method for assessing CSC under measurement error-corrected multilevel modeling was used, overcoming three limitations of traditional CSC methods: (a) restriction to two time points, (b) use of total scores, and (c) assumption of constant reliability across time and participants. Because of concerns about Type II errors with all CSC methods, an individual-level effect size metric for CSC was also developed. Based on individualized Cohen’s <em>d</em> estimates, individual-level improvements in externalizing from 4th through 11th grades of <em>d</em> ≥ 0.5 were significantly greater in ICP (73%) versus GCP (45%). Further, GCP saw significantly higher percentages of youth with worsening of externalizing, underscoring concerns about diminished effects for GCP. Half of the sample had improvement that was not statistically significant but exceeded <em>d</em> ≥ 0.5, highlighting the susceptibility to Type II errors of CSC’s results based on statistical significance. An examination of ICP/GCP differences under advanced CSC analysis gives more nuanced information than conventional randomized controlled trial analysis and greater precision in estimating individual-level outcomes than standard CSC methodologies.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48359,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Behavior Therapy\",\"volume\":\"56 3\",\"pages\":\"Pages 513-528\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Behavior Therapy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0005789424001205\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHIATRY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Behavior Therapy","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0005789424001205","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

应对能力(CP)是一种旨在减少儿童外化问题的预防性干预。虽然它通常以组格式(GCP)交付,但单独交付的CP (ICP)在外部化问题方面产生了更大的平均减少。然而,随机试验的标准分析失去了关于哪些年轻人改善、没有改善或变得更糟的个人水平的信息,而临床显著变化(CSC)指标捕获了个人变化的信息。本研究是对一项ICP/GCP试验(N = 360)的二次分析,该试验检验了基于csc的个体层面外化推断的差异。本文提出了一种基于测量误差校正的多层次模型评估CSC的新方法,克服了传统CSC方法的三个局限性:(A)限于两个时间点,(b)使用总分,(c)假设跨时间和参与者的信度不变。由于对所有CSC方法的II型误差的关注,CSC的个人水平效应大小度量也被开发出来。根据个体化的Cohen’s d估计,从4年级到11年级,d≥0.5的外化在个体水平上的改善在ICP(73%)中显著大于GCP(45%)。此外,外化恶化的青少年在GCP中所占比例明显更高,这凸显了对GCP效果减弱的担忧。一半的样本改善无统计学意义,但超过d≥0.5,突出了CSC结果在统计学意义上对II型错误的易感性。在高级CSC分析下对ICP/GCP差异的检查比传统的随机对照试验分析提供了更细致的信息,在估计个人水平结果方面比标准CSC方法更精确。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Beyond Jacobson and Truax: Estimation of Clinical Significance Trajectories in the Coping Power Intervention Using Measurement Error-Corrected Multilevel Modeling
Coping Power (CP) is a preventive intervention that focuses on reducing child externalizing problems. Although it is typically delivered in a group format (GCP), individually delivered CP (ICP) has produced greater mean reductions in externalizing problems. However, standard analysis of randomized trials loses individual-level information regarding which youth improve, fail to improve, or get worse, whereas clinically significant change (CSC) metrics capture information on individual change. The present study is a secondary analysis of an ICP/GCP trial (N = 360) that examines differences in CSC-based individual-level inferences on externalizing. A novel method for assessing CSC under measurement error-corrected multilevel modeling was used, overcoming three limitations of traditional CSC methods: (a) restriction to two time points, (b) use of total scores, and (c) assumption of constant reliability across time and participants. Because of concerns about Type II errors with all CSC methods, an individual-level effect size metric for CSC was also developed. Based on individualized Cohen’s d estimates, individual-level improvements in externalizing from 4th through 11th grades of d ≥ 0.5 were significantly greater in ICP (73%) versus GCP (45%). Further, GCP saw significantly higher percentages of youth with worsening of externalizing, underscoring concerns about diminished effects for GCP. Half of the sample had improvement that was not statistically significant but exceeded d ≥ 0.5, highlighting the susceptibility to Type II errors of CSC’s results based on statistical significance. An examination of ICP/GCP differences under advanced CSC analysis gives more nuanced information than conventional randomized controlled trial analysis and greater precision in estimating individual-level outcomes than standard CSC methodologies.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Behavior Therapy
Behavior Therapy Multiple-
CiteScore
7.40
自引率
2.70%
发文量
113
审稿时长
121 days
期刊介绍: Behavior Therapy is a quarterly international journal devoted to the application of the behavioral and cognitive sciences to the conceptualization, assessment, and treatment of psychopathology and related clinical problems. It is intended for mental health professionals and students from all related disciplines who wish to remain current in these areas and provides a vehicle for scientist-practitioners and clinical scientists to report the results of their original empirical research. Although the major emphasis is placed upon empirical research, methodological and theoretical papers as well as evaluative reviews of the literature will also be published. Controlled single-case designs and clinical replication series are welcome.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信