Newman Frederick L, Saunders Stephen, Feaster Daniel J
Health Services Administration, Florida International University, Miami 33199, USA.
J Clin Psychol. 2003 Jul;59(7):735-43. doi: 10.1002/jclp.10168.
The two articles discussed are integral ingredients of a greater whole Ken Howard envisioned. The first (Saunders, Howard, & Newman, 1988) refined our understanding of clinical significance, challenging researchers to clearly define the character and range of behaviors identified as normal or nonclinical for a specific population. The second (Rogers, Howard, & Vessey, 1993) focused on tests of equivalency between two experimental groups. Both were part of a general theme: A study's outcome requires a careful delineation of the norms and "normality" for that population as well as to whether the differences or equivalencies of the outcomes from these norms are important to the client, to the client's family, or to the community/society in which the client is to function. Ken's second authorship, typical on his many publications, honored his dedication to mentoring those who would improve upon what is currently understood.
所讨论的这两篇文章是肯·霍华德所设想的更大整体的重要组成部分。第一篇（桑德斯、霍华德和纽曼，1988年）完善了我们对临床意义的理解，促使研究人员明确界定针对特定人群被认定为正常或非临床行为的特征和范围。第二篇（罗杰斯、霍华德和维西，1993年）聚焦于两个实验组之间的等效性测试。这两篇文章都是一个总体主题的一部分：一项研究的结果需要仔细划定该人群的规范和“正常状态”，以及这些规范所产生的结果差异或等效性对服务对象、服务对象的家庭，或者对服务对象将要生活的社区/社会是否重要。肯作为第二作者，在他众多的出版物中很常见，这体现了他致力于指导那些会在现有认知基础上有所改进的人。
