Psychology Research Works

Permanent URI for this collectionhttp://hdl.handle.net/1903/1645

Browse

Filters

2006 - 20082

Settings

Author: search.filters.author.Kazdin, AlanSubject: search.filters.subject.efficacy

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Conceptualizing changes in behavior in intervention research: the range of possible changes model.
    (American Psychological Association, 2006) De Los Reyes, Andres; Kazdin, Alan
    An international movement has focused on identifying evidence-based interventions that were developed to change psychological constructs and that are supported by controlled studies. However, inconsistent findings within individual intervention studies and among multiple studies raise critical problems in interpreting the evidence, and deciding when and whether an intervention is evidence-based. A theoretical and methodological framework (Range of Possible Changes [RPC] Model) is proposed to guide the study of change in intervention research. The authors recommend that future quantitative reviews of the research literature use the RPC Model to conceptualize, examine, and classify the available evidence for interventions. Future research should adopt the RPC Model to both develop theory-driven hypotheses and conduct examinations of the instances in which interventions may or may not change psychological constructs. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2007 APA, all rights reserved)(from the journal abstract)
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    When the evidence says, "Yes, no, and maybe so": Attending to and interpreting inconsistent findings among evidence-based interventions.
    (United Kingdom: Wiley-Blackwell Publishing Ltd.., 2008) De Los Reyes, Andres; Kazdin, Alan
    An international, multidisciplinary 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. In this paper we highlight the implications of inconsistencies, describe a framework for redressing inconsistent findings, and illustrate how the framework can guide future research on how to administer and combine treatments to maximize treatment effects and how to study treatments via quantitative review.