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, 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","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, 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\",\"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}
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.
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.