Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) not only are the gold standard for evaluating the efficacy and effectiveness of psychiatric treatments but also can be valuable in revealing moderators and mediators of therapeutic change. Conceptually, moderators identify on whom and under what circumstances treatments have different effects. Mediators identify why and how treatments have effects. We describe an analytic framework to identify and distinguish between moderators and mediators in RCTs when outcomes are measured dimensionally. Rapid progress in identifying the most effective treatments and understanding on whom treatments work and do not work and why treatments work or do not work depends on efforts to identify moderators and mediators of treatment outcome. We recommend that RCTs routinely include and report such analyses.

The structured consensus method was a feasible and fair mechanism for choosing candidate tests, and direct comparison of beta battery tests in a common sample allowed selection of a final consensus battery. The MATRICS Consensus Cognitive Battery is expected to be the standard tool for assessing cognitive change in clinical trials of cognition-enhancing drugs for schizophrenia. It may also aid evaluation of cognitive remediation strategies.

The aims of the present review are to apply a recent risk factor approach (H. C. Kraemer et al., 1997) to putative risk factors for eating disorders, to order these along a timeline, and to deduce general taxonomic questions. Putative risk factors were classified according to risk factor type, outcome (anorexia nervosa, bulimia nervosa, binge-eating disorder, full vs. partial syndromes), and additional factor characteristics (specificity, potency, need for replication). Few of the putative risk factors were reported to precede the onset of the disorder. Many factors were general risk factors; only few differentiated between the 3 eating disorder syndromes. Common risk factors from longitudinal and cross-sectional studies were gender, ethnicity, early childhood eating and gastrointestinal problems, elevated weight and shape concerns, negative self-evaluation, sexual abuse and other adverse experiences, and general psychiatric morbidity. Suggestions are made for the conceptualization of future risk factor studies.

Pilot studies represent a fundamental phase of the research process. The purpose of conducting a pilot study is to examine the feasibility of an approach that is intended to be used in a larger scale study. The roles and limitations of pilot studies are described here using a clinical trial as an example. A pilot study can be used to evaluate the feasibility of recruitment, randomization, retention, assessment procedures, new methods, and implementation of the novel intervention.A pilot study is not a hypothesis testing study. Safety, efficacy and effectiveness are not evaluated in a pilot. Contrary to tradition, a pilot study does not provide a meaningful effect size estimate for planning subsequent studies due to the imprecision inherent in data from small samples. Feasibility results do not necessarily generalize beyond the inclusion and exclusion criteria of the pilot design.A pilot study is a requisite initial step in exploring a novel intervention or an innovative application of an intervention. Pilot results can inform feasibility and identify modifications needed in the design of a larger, ensuing hypothesis testing study. Investigators should be forthright in stating these objectives of a pilot study. Grant reviewers and other stakeholders should expect no more.

Terms such as risk, risk factors, and especially the term cause are inconsistently and imprecisely used, fostering scientific miscommunication and misleading research and policy. Clarifying such terms is the essential first step. We define risk and a risk factor (protective factor) and their potency, set out the conceptual basis of the methods by which risk factors are identified and potency demonstrated, and propose criteria for establishing the status of a risk factor as a fixed or variable marker or a causal risk factor. All definitions are based on the state of scientific knowledge (empirical documentation), rather than on hypotheses, speculations, or beliefs. We discuss common approaches and pitfalls and give a psychiatric research example. Imprecise reports can impede the search for understanding the cause and course of any disease and also may be a basis of inadequate clinical or policy decision-making. The issues in risk research are much too important to tolerate less than precise terminology or the less than rigorous research reporting that results from imprecise and inconsistent terminology.