What Are the Fundamental Facts of a Comparison of Two Treatments' Outcomes?

Responds to comments by Stefan G. Hofmann (see record 2011-19228-003), Edward A. Wise (see record 2011-19228-004), Michael J. Lambert (see record 2011-19228-005), and William H. Gottdiener (see record 2011-19228-006) on the authors original article "Statistical significance testing and clinical...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Psychotherapy (Chicago, Ill.) Ill.), 2011-09, Vol.48 (3), p.234-236
Main Author: Krause, Merton S
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Clinical outcomes
Clinical randomized controlled trials
Clinical Trials
Null hypothesis
Null Hypothesis Testing
Psychotherapy
Significance tests
Statistical Significance
Treatment Effectiveness Evaluation
Treatment Outcomes
Citations: Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Responds to comments by Stefan G. Hofmann (see record 2011-19228-003), Edward A. Wise (see record 2011-19228-004), Michael J. Lambert (see record 2011-19228-005), and William H. Gottdiener (see record 2011-19228-006) on the authors original article "Statistical significance testing and clinical trials" (see record 2011-19228-002). The original article is one very narrowly focused effort at studying the implications of relying on the null hypothesis significance test (NHST) for determining which psychotherapy randomized clinical trial (RCT) findings to take seriously for clinical purposes. Although there are several approaches for faulting the NHST, the matter is important and complicated enough to justify dealing, in detail, with one approach at a time. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved)
ISSN:0033-3204
1939-1536
DOI:10.1037/a0023383