Do Estimates of Treatment Effectiveness Differ in Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Studies?

2.50
Hdl Handle:
http://hdl.handle.net/10755/161637
Type:
Presentation
Title:
Do Estimates of Treatment Effectiveness Differ in Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Studies?
Abstract:
Do Estimates of Treatment Effectiveness Differ in Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Studies?
Conference Sponsor:Midwest Nursing Research Society
Conference Year:2002
Author:Devine, Elizabeth, PhD
P.I. Institution Name:University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
Title:Professor
Contact Address:School of Nursing, Cunningham Hall, Room 623, PO Box 413, Milwaukee, WI, 53201, USA
Contact Telephone:414.229.5695
Two meta-analyses on effects of psychoeducational care were reexamined to determine whether estimates of treatment effectiveness differed in experimental and quasi-experimental studies. Studies with no control group, self- selection to treatment condition, or treatment and control groups who received usual medical/nursing care in different health care setting(s) were excluded. The differences in average effect size value (d+) for experimental and quasi-experimental studies were tested using the analogue for regression. Of 164 studies with surgical patients, 71% were experimental and 29% were quasi-experimental. For the three outcomes analyzed (length of hospital stay, psychological well-being, and pain), effect size values were significantly different from zero (p<.05) in all 6 subsets. Of 86 studies with cancer patients, 79% were experimental and 21% were quasi-experimental. All of the studies measuring nausea, vomiting, or pain in this meta-analysis were experimental and were not included in this analysis. For the three outcomes analyzed (depression, anxiety, and knowledge), effect size values were significant different from zero (p<.05) in all 6 subsets. In both meta-analyses most differences in d+ between experimental and quasi- experimental studies were less than .15, did not affect the general conclusion about whether the experimental treatment had a positive effect on the outcomes examined, and did not consistently favor experimental or quasi- experimental designs. Analyses are limited by the fact that studies with obviously flawed quasi-experimental and pre-experimental designs were excluded. While a threat to the validity of a meta-analysis based on the internal validity of studies included in the review is plausible, including high quality quasi-experimental designs does not inevitably have a large or consistent influence on estimates of treatment effectiveness. It is, however, essential that the threat be considered and, where possible, examined empirically.
Repository Posting Date:
26-Oct-2011
Date of Publication:
17-Oct-2011
Sponsors:
Midwest Nursing Research Society

Full metadata record

DC FieldValue Language
dc.typePresentationen_GB
dc.titleDo Estimates of Treatment Effectiveness Differ in Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Studies?en_GB
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10755/161637-
dc.description.abstract<table><tr><td colspan="2" class="item-title">Do Estimates of Treatment Effectiveness Differ in Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Studies?</td></tr><tr class="item-sponsor"><td class="label">Conference Sponsor:</td><td class="value">Midwest Nursing Research Society</td></tr><tr class="item-year"><td class="label">Conference Year:</td><td class="value">2002</td></tr><tr class="item-author"><td class="label">Author:</td><td class="value">Devine, Elizabeth, PhD</td></tr><tr class="item-institute"><td class="label">P.I. Institution Name:</td><td class="value">University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee</td></tr><tr class="item-author-title"><td class="label">Title:</td><td class="value">Professor</td></tr><tr class="item-address"><td class="label">Contact Address:</td><td class="value">School of Nursing, Cunningham Hall, Room 623, PO Box 413, Milwaukee, WI, 53201, USA</td></tr><tr class="item-phone"><td class="label">Contact Telephone:</td><td class="value">414.229.5695</td></tr><tr class="item-email"><td class="label">Email:</td><td class="value">ecd@uwm.edu</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2" class="item-abstract">Two meta-analyses on effects of psychoeducational care were reexamined to determine whether estimates of treatment effectiveness differed in experimental and quasi-experimental studies. Studies with no control group, self- selection to treatment condition, or treatment and control groups who received usual medical/nursing care in different health care setting(s) were excluded. The differences in average effect size value (d+) for experimental and quasi-experimental studies were tested using the analogue for regression. Of 164 studies with surgical patients, 71% were experimental and 29% were quasi-experimental. For the three outcomes analyzed (length of hospital stay, psychological well-being, and pain), effect size values were significantly different from zero (p&lt;.05) in all 6 subsets. Of 86 studies with cancer patients, 79% were experimental and 21% were quasi-experimental. All of the studies measuring nausea, vomiting, or pain in this meta-analysis were experimental and were not included in this analysis. For the three outcomes analyzed (depression, anxiety, and knowledge), effect size values were significant different from zero (p&lt;.05) in all 6 subsets. In both meta-analyses most differences in d+ between experimental and quasi- experimental studies were less than .15, did not affect the general conclusion about whether the experimental treatment had a positive effect on the outcomes examined, and did not consistently favor experimental or quasi- experimental designs. Analyses are limited by the fact that studies with obviously flawed quasi-experimental and pre-experimental designs were excluded. While a threat to the validity of a meta-analysis based on the internal validity of studies included in the review is plausible, including high quality quasi-experimental designs does not inevitably have a large or consistent influence on estimates of treatment effectiveness. It is, however, essential that the threat be considered and, where possible, examined empirically.</td></tr></table>en_GB
dc.date.available2011-10-26T23:24:41Z-
dc.date.issued2011-10-17en_GB
dc.date.accessioned2011-10-26T23:24:41Z-
dc.description.sponsorshipMidwest Nursing Research Societyen_GB
All Items in this repository are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.