Procrastination
Describe the research study/studies you would conduct to determine whether your treatment is efficacious. Make sure to explain why each part of your study is important. What can you conclude from these studies?
Students were replacing high priority tasks or responsibilities with tasks that are of lower priority. To combat this behavior, I developed a treatment called neurotic and attentive therapy. To test whether the treatment was effective I chose to use the method of study called the intervention bias method. To have an effective study I randomly chose two groups of four students for each group, from a school environment (Chambless & Hollon, 1998). I used this method to study patient characteristics before I introduced the treatment tone group. After that, I introduced neurotic and officious therapy to one group and I left the other group without treatment. The importance of these steps was to study the development of this treatment gradually so I can compare the difference between the two groups.
After introducing the therapy and observation, there was behavioral change. The group undergoing therapy started taking up the assignments of higher priority first before those assignments they considered easy. On the other hand, the group with no treatment subjection continued with the same behavior as before (Wampold, Ollendick & King, 2005).
This method proved to be officious because two groups were compared, and a single case study was performed on each group of students, my results solely rested on the number of independence or deprecations. This method of study proved to be efficacious because it worked for more than three participants in a group and with the absence of conflicting data.
Describe the research study/studies you would conduct to determine whether your treatment is specific. Make sure to explain why each part of your study is important. What can you conclude from these studies?
I implemented some common intervention biases like contamination bias. In this method, I choose some samples with common symptoms and then I subjected one sample group to different treatments. As a result, it minimized the difference between the two groups. The second one was timing bias. I assigned different times to both groups and received different outcomes.
I began by introducing one group to neurotic and attentive guidance therapy. Secluding each separately generally means that I avoided any chance of contamination with each other. I gave them different time and different conditions in seclusion (APA Presidential Task Force on Evidence-Based Practice, 2006).
After the time elapsed, the intervention bias method of the study produced very correct and specific outcomes of the study. Following these steps, it means that the contamination rate is minimized and the result will at most be correct. After the test, the group subjected to therapy showed a positive response to the regression to mean after I re-measured them after the treatment while the other group’s regressions tended to move further away from the mean (Paul, 2004).
I concluded that the study was very effective. Time together with the treatment proved to be very important to the study because I began visualizing positive change of treatment after some time elapsed. This made it worthwhile for the potential study group.
What are two factors that could potentially confound the results from your study?
- Generalizability:-this This is the assumption that this therapy may work for everybody. Some people could have been different in education level, age, or naturally lazy thus unresponsive to therapy.
- Passage of time:-. The seclusion and assigning some time for therapy may have changed the attitude of the people that were subjected to this therapy.
What steps could you take to reduce these confounds?
For the issue of generalizability, I would test again with a sample of the different environments to prove the therapy’s general application, and for the time aspect, I would, assign both groups of study, equal time, and use their results as comparison tools to decide on a time.
References
APA Presidential Task Force on Evidence-Based Practice (2006). Evidence-based psychology practice. American Psychologist, 61, 271-285.
Chambless, D. L., & Hollon, S. D. (1998). Defining empirically supported therapies. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 66, 7-18.
Paul, H. (2004). Issues and controversies surrounding recent texts on empirically-based psychotherapy: A meta-review. Brief and Crisis Intervention, 4(4), 389-399.
Wampold, B.E., Ollendick, T.H., & King, N.J. (2005). Evidence-based practice in mental health. Washington, DC: APA Books.