Empirically supported treatments (or therapies; ESTs) are the gold standard in therapeutic interventions for psychopathology. Based on a set of methodological and statistical criteria, the APA has assigned particular treatment-diagnosis combinations EST status and has further rated their empirical support as Strong, Modest, and/or Controversial. Emerging concerns about the replicability of research findings in clinical psychology highlight the need to critically examine the evidential value of EST research. We therefore conducted a meta-scientific review of the EST literature, using clinical trials reported in an existing online APA database of ESTs, and a set of novel evidential value metrics (i.e., rates of misreported statistics, statistical power, R-Index, and Bayes Factors). Our analyses indicated that power and replicability estimates were concerningly low across almost all ESTs, and individually, some ESTs scored poorly across multiple metrics, with Strong ESTs failing to continuously outperform their Modest counterparts. Lastly, we found evidence of improvements over time in statistical power within the EST literature, but not for the strength of evidence of EST efficacy. We describe the implications of our findings for practicing psychotherapists and offer recommendations for improving the evidential value of EST research moving forward. General Scientific Summary: This review suggests that although the underlying evidence for a small number of empirically supported therapies is consistently strong across a range of metrics, the evidence is mixed or consistently weak for many, including some classified by Division 12 of the APA as "Strong."
Sexual script research (Simon & Gagnon 1969 , 1986 ) bourgeoned following Simon and Gagnon's groundbreaking work. Empirical measurement of sexual script adherence has been limited, however, as no measures exist that have undergone rigorous development and validation. We conducted three studies to examine current dominant sexual scripts of heterosexual adults and to develop a measure of endorsement of these scripts. In Study 1, we conducted three focus groups of men ( n = 19) and four of women ( n = 20) to discuss the current scripts governing sexual behavior. Results supported scripts for sex drive, physical and emotional sex, sexual performance, initiation and gatekeeping, and evaluation of sexual others. In Study 2, we used these qualitative findings to develop a measure of script endorsement, the Sexual Script Scale. Factor analysis of data from 721 participants revealed six interrelated factors demonstrating initial construct validity. In Study 3, confirmatory factor analysis of a separate sample of 289 participants supported the model from Study 2, and evidence of factorial invariance and test-retest reliability was obtained. This article presents the results of these studies, documenting the process of scale development from formative research through to confirmatory testing, and suggests future directions for the continued development of sexual scripting theory.
Prosocial behavior is often thought to bring benefits to individuals and relationships. Do such benefits exist when prosocial behavior is costly for the individual, such as when people are sacrificing for their partner or relationship? Although different theoretical accounts would predict that sacrifice is either positively or negatively associated with personal and relational well-being, empirical work in this regard has been inconclusive. We conducted a meta-analytic synthesis of 82 data sets and 9,547 effect sizes (N ϭ 32,053) to test the link between sacrifice and both personal and relationship well-being for both the individual who performs the sacrifice and their romantic partner. We examined four different facets of sacrifice (i.e., willingness to sacrifice, behavioral sacrifice, satisfaction with sacrifice, and costs of sacrifice). Results revealed that these facets were differently associated with well-being. Specifically, an individual's willingness to sacrifice was positively associated with their own personal and relationship well-being and with their partner's relationship well-being (.09 Ͻ rs Ͻ .27). However, behavioral sacrifice was negatively associated with own personal well-being (r ϭ Ϫ.07). Satisfaction with sacrifice was positively associated with individual and partner well-being (.11 Ͻ rs Ͻ .43). Costs of sacrifice were negatively related to one's own personal and relationship well-being and to the partner's relationship well-being (Ϫ.10 Ͻ rs Ͻ Ϫ.26). Some moderators were also identified. We discuss the implications of these findings for research on prosocial behavior and relationships, address the implications of the methodologies used to study prosocial behavior, and suggest directions for future research.
Quantitative research has resulted in inconsistent evidence for the existence of a sexual double standard, leading Crawford and Popp ( 2003 ) to issue a call for methodological innovation. The implicit association test (IAT; Greenwald, McGhee, & Schwartz, 1998 ) is a measure that may provide a means to examine the double standard without the contamination of the demand characteristics and social desirability biases that plague self-report research (Marks & Fraley, 2005 ). The purpose of this study was to examine the factors influencing explicit and implicit double standards, and to examine the relationship between these explicit and implicit double standards, and levels of socially desirable responding. One hundred and three university students completed a sexual double standard IAT, an explicit measure of the double standard, and measures of socially desirable responding. Hierarchical regression analysis indicated that levels of socially desirable responding were not related to implicit or explicit double standards. Men endorsed a stronger explicit traditional double standard than women, whereas for implicit sexual standards, men demonstrated a relatively gender-neutral evaluation and women demonstrated a strong reverse double standard. These results suggest the existence of a complex double standard, and indicate that more research of sexual attitudes should include implicit measures.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.