Shadish W R, Matt G E, Navarro A M, Siegle G, Crits-Christoph P, Hazelrigg M D, Jorm A F, Lyons L C, Nietzel M T, Prout H T, Robinson L, Smith M L, Svartberg M, Weiss B
Department of Psychology, University of Memphis, Tennessee 38152, USA.
J Consult Clin Psychol. 1997 Jun;65(3):355-65.
This article reports a secondary analysis of past therapy outcome meta-analysis. Fifteen meta-analysis provided effect sizes from 56 studies in previous reviews that met 1 of 3 increasingly stringent levels of criteria for clinical representativeness. The effect sizes were synthesized and compared with results from the original meta-analyses. Effect sizes from more clinically representative studies are the same size at all 3 criteria levels as in past meta-analyses. Almost no studies exist that meet the most stringent level of criteria. Results are interpreted cautiously because of controversy about what criteria best capture the notion of clinical representativeness, because so few experiments have tested therapy in clinical conditions, and because other models for exploring the generalizability of therapy outcome research to clinical conditions might yield different results.
本文报告了一项对既往治疗结果荟萃分析的二次分析。十五项荟萃分析提供了来自既往综述中56项研究的效应量，这些研究满足了临床代表性三个日益严格标准中的一项。对效应量进行了综合，并与原始荟萃分析的结果进行了比较。在所有三个标准水平上，来自更具临床代表性研究的效应量与既往荟萃分析中的效应量大小相同。几乎没有研究符合最严格的标准水平。由于对于何种标准最能体现临床代表性存在争议，由于在临床条件下测试治疗方法的实验很少，并且由于探索治疗结果研究对临床条件的可推广性的其他模型可能会产生不同的结果，因此对结果的解释需谨慎。
