group critique
TRANSCRIPT
FINAL ASSIGNMENT
GR
OU
P C
RIT
IQU
E O
F E
MP
IRIC
AL
RE
SE
AR
CH
AR
TIC
LE
By
: A
nd
rea
Su
mm
erli
n,
Cydn
e N
ash
, &
Cry
stal
Go
rdo
n
• Existing stable online
CBT-based intervention
• Designed to assist
people with
compulsive hoarding
(p. 80).
…could be expanded to other mental health areas (e.g., psychosocial approach, motivational interviewing).
• Potential to increase motivation and decrease social isolation (p. 80).
• Potential to reduce treatment & community-based costs associated with hoarding.
• Appeals to isolated individuals with stigma concerns and/or limited motivation for professional care (p. 84).
Primary research
Question
Is an existing private
online CBT-based
group intervention
effective in helping
people with hoarding?
Research Design
Quasi-experimental as
membership in the
active intervention
group and waitlist
group was not randomly
assigned (p. 80).*
“Type” of Research
The study was
comparative to
compare 2 groups &
clearly define it. Also,
this was a naturalistic
study (p. 84). **
*Quasi-experimental designs lack internal validity & appears to be inferior to experiments that are randomized.
**Researchers are careful to avoid interfering with the behavior they are observing by using unobtrusive methods.
RESEARCH QUESTIONS
RESEARCH QUESTIONS (CON’T)
3 hypotheses were tested (p. 80):
1. Web-group participants will show more improvement in hoarding symptoms over time compared to waitlisted controls
2. Greater reductions in hoarding & acquiring behavior will be observed among
• more active group members, members with fewer comorbid mental & physical health problems, &members who report less social isolation
3. Longer-term group members will begin the study with lower symptom severity than recent group members
*
*
*
*No studies on internet-based self-help groups for compulsive hoarding (p. 80).
** Few empirical studies on effective treatments (p. 79).
• No Random Selection
• No Sampling Frame
• Results cannot be
generalized beyond the
sample
• Convenience
• Purposive
Hey!
Wait!
Please!
Methodology
Sampling Technique
Non-Probability (p. 80)
Design
After-Only Nonequivalent Control Group Design-Longitudinal
DIAGRAM
• History• Instrumentation, • Maturation, • Testing
All ruled out as threats to internal validity because a comparison group was used.
• Selection, • Regression to the Mean, • Interactions
Cannot be ruled out because random assignment did not occur.
Not a good choice given the purpose of the research
• IV = Treatment (Online CBT-based group
intervention)
• Value = Before and After Treatment
(Nominal Dichotomy)
• DV1 = Hoarding Symptoms
• Value = Scores on a scale (Interval)
• DV2 = Clutter Severity
• Value = Scores on a scale (Interval)
• DV3 = Social Isolation and Loneliness
• Value = Scores on a scale (Interval)
• DV4=Depression, anxiety, and stress
symptoms
• Value = Scores on a scale (Interval)
• DV5=Physical and Mental Health Status
• Value = Scores on a Scale (Interval)
• DV6 = Group Participation
• Value = Numbers of postings and
number of days of activity (Ratio)
All DVs were operationalized with known
scales
• Excluding DV6, which was
operationalized using existing data.
Measurements
Measurements
Validity Reliability
• Researchers could have used the Test-retest
method; the scales were used at regular
intervals over a 15-month period.
• From online sources of active
(experimental) participants
• Reliable & Valid method; it documented:
• # of days a person was active in the
group
• # of postings regarding action steps
Validity could have been tested by using Content and Criterion-Related methods.
Known
Scales
Were
Used…
Ethical Issues
1. Potential subjects were contacted via email
• by the leader of the group & given a link to a voluntary anonymous online survey (p. 80).
2. The online group excludes non- hoarders and/or clutterers
• Family members, researchers, professional organizers, & therapists (p. 80).
3. Study was approved:
• by the IRB at Boston University, University of Michigan, & Smith College (p. 81).
4. Each participant that completed the survey was offered a $15 gift card (p. 81).
Statistics
• Tables & Narrative found on pages 81-83
• Includes: tables 2, 3, & 5.
• Interesting Findings
• Demographics of participants
• % of ways participants connected to internet
• % of Long-term members who received psychotherapy
Descriptive
Statistics
• Statistical test used: Independent sample t-tests
• There was 1 dichotomy & 1 interval for each
IV/DV combination.
• Significant Findings (Table 4, p. 83)
SIR total, SIR clutter, SIR difficulty discarding,
and SIR acquisition all p<.01
CIR p=.04
• Non-significant findings (Table 4, p.83)
CGI
Inferential
Results & conclusions were clearly stated…
the summary was helpful in understanding the
study & future research necessary.
Key Findings
• The CBT-based online support group intervention was an effective treatment for hoarders.
• Yet, the findings show that the treatment does not control for all hoarding symptoms.
• In person group and/or individual CBT therapy have a more significant impact on the hoarding symptoms of acquisition
• The online support group did not impact that hoarding symptom as significantly.
“Next Steps “
• More tests
• systematized CBT-based online support groups for hoarding.
• intense online treatment for shorter duration.
• Examine CBT-based online treatment program for hoarders as care with different phases/levels, stand alone or supplemental.
It an extend access to mental
health treatment (p. 84).
Advantages: readily accessible, inexpensive, &
potentially less stigmatizing (p. 80).
More accessibility for
the hearing impaired
(p. 80).
Willingness to reveal
sensitive information (p. 80)