When the Evidence Says, "Yes, No, and Maybe So": Attending to and Interpreting Inconsistent Findings Among Evidence-Based Interventions.
An international, multi-disciplinary effort aims to identify evidence-based treatments (EBTs) or interventions. The goal of this effort is to identify specific techniques or programs that successfully target and change specific behaviors. In clinical psychology, EBTs are identified based on the outcomes of randomized controlled trials examining whether treatments outperform control or alternative treatment conditions. Treatment outcomes are measured in multiple ways. Consistently, different ways of gauging outcomes yield inconsistent conclusions. Historically, EBT research has not accounted for these inconsistencies. This paper highlights the implications of inconsistencies, describes a framework for redressing inconsistent findings, and illustrates how the framework guides future work examining how to administer and combine treatments to maximize treatment effects, and study treatments meta-analytically.
Yale University.
Andres
A
De Los Reyes
Alan E
AE
Kazdin
Psychol Bull. 2005 Jul;131(4):483-509
16060799
J Consult Clin Psychol. 1997 Feb;65(1):93-109
9103739
Psychol Bull. 1989 Jan;105(1):106-15
2648436
J Consult Clin Psychol. 1996 Apr;64(2):333-42
8871418
Am Psychol. 2006 Jan;61(1):27-41
16435974
Annu Rev Psychol. 2001;52:59-82
11148299
J Consult Clin Psychol. 1997 Jun;65(3):366-80
9170760
J Consult Clin Psychol. 1994 Feb;62(1):100-10
8034812
Psychol Bull. 2004 Mar;130(2):206-27
14979770
Psychol Bull. 2005 May;131(3):361-82
15869333
Psychol Bull. 1987 Mar;101(2):213-32
3562706
Psychol Rev. 2006 Jul;113(3):554-83
16802881