title: Equivalence to normal?
abstract: The two articles discussed are integral ingredients of a greater whole Ken Howard envisioned. The first (Saunders, Howard, & Newman, 1988) refined our understanding of clinical significance, challenging researchers to clearly define the character and range of behaviors identified as normal or nonclinical for a specific population. The second (Rogers, Howard, & Vessey, 1993) focused on tests of equivalency between two experimental groups. Both were part of a general theme: A study's outcome requires a careful delineation of the norms and "normality" for that population as well as to whether the differences or equivalencies of the outcomes from these norms are important to the client, to the client's family, or to the community/society in which the client is to function. Ken's second authorship, typical on his many publications, honored his dedication to mentoring those who would improve upon what is currently understood.
authors.affiliation: Health Services Administration, Florida International University, Miami 33199, USA. newman@fiu.edu
authors.forename: Frederick L
authors.initials: FL
authors.lastname: Newman
authors.forename: Stephen
authors.initials: S
authors.lastname: Saunders
authors.forename: Daniel J
authors.initials: DJ
authors.lastname: Feaster
mesh_terms: D016001:Confidence Intervals; D006801:Humans; D001523:Mental Disorders / Q000145:classification / Q000175:diagnosis / Q000628:therapy; D010043:Outcome and Process Assessment, Health Care / Q000706:statistics & numerical data*; D013811:Psychotherapeutic Processes; D011613:Psychotherapy / Q000379:methods / Q000592:standards*; D012494:Sampling Studies; D016896:Treatment Outcome