FINAL ASSIGNMENT

GR

OU

P C

RIT

IQU

E O

F E

MP

IRIC

AL

RE

SE

AR

CH

AR

TIC

LE

By

: A

nd

rea

Su

mm

erli

n,

Cydn

e N

ash

, &

Cry

stal

Go

rdo

n

• Existing stable online

CBT-based intervention

• Designed to assist

people with

compulsive hoarding

(p. 80).

…could be expanded to other mental health areas (e.g., psychosocial approach, motivational interviewing).

• Potential to increase motivation and decrease social isolation (p. 80).

• Potential to reduce treatment & community-based costs associated with hoarding.

• Appeals to isolated individuals with stigma concerns and/or limited motivation for professional care (p. 84).

Primary research

Question

Is an existing private

online CBT-based

group intervention

effective in helping

people with hoarding?

Research Design

Quasi-experimental as

membership in the

active intervention

group and waitlist

group was not randomly

assigned (p. 80).*

“Type” of Research

The study was

comparative to

compare 2 groups &

clearly define it. Also,

this was a naturalistic

study (p. 84). **

*Quasi-experimental designs lack internal validity & appears to be inferior to experiments that are randomized.

**Researchers are careful to avoid interfering with the behavior they are observing by using unobtrusive methods.

RESEARCH QUESTIONS

RESEARCH QUESTIONS (CON’T)

3 hypotheses were tested (p. 80):

1. Web-group participants will show more improvement in hoarding symptoms over time compared to waitlisted controls

2. Greater reductions in hoarding & acquiring behavior will be observed among

• more active group members, members with fewer comorbid mental & physical health problems, &members who report less social isolation

3. Longer-term group members will begin the study with lower symptom severity than recent group members

*

*

*

*No studies on internet-based self-help groups for compulsive hoarding (p. 80).

** Few empirical studies on effective treatments (p. 79).

• No Random Selection

• No Sampling Frame

• Results cannot be

generalized beyond the

sample

• Convenience

• Purposive

Hey!

Wait!

Please!

Methodology

Sampling Technique

Non-Probability (p. 80)

Design

After-Only Nonequivalent Control Group Design-Longitudinal

DIAGRAM

• History• Instrumentation, • Maturation, • Testing

All ruled out as threats to internal validity because a comparison group was used.

• Selection, • Regression to the Mean, • Interactions

Cannot be ruled out because random assignment did not occur.

Not a good choice given the purpose of the research

• IV = Treatment (Online CBT-based group

intervention)

• Value = Before and After Treatment

(Nominal Dichotomy)

• DV1 = Hoarding Symptoms

• Value = Scores on a scale (Interval)

• DV2 = Clutter Severity

• Value = Scores on a scale (Interval)

• DV3 = Social Isolation and Loneliness

• Value = Scores on a scale (Interval)

• DV4=Depression, anxiety, and stress

symptoms

• Value = Scores on a scale (Interval)

• DV5=Physical and Mental Health Status

• Value = Scores on a Scale (Interval)

• DV6 = Group Participation

• Value = Numbers of postings and

number of days of activity (Ratio)

All DVs were operationalized with known

scales

• Excluding DV6, which was

operationalized using existing data.

Measurements

Measurements

Validity Reliability

• Researchers could have used the Test-retest

method; the scales were used at regular

intervals over a 15-month period.

• From online sources of active

(experimental) participants

• Reliable & Valid method; it documented:

• # of days a person was active in the

group

• # of postings regarding action steps

Validity could have been tested by using Content and Criterion-Related methods.

Known

Scales

Were

Used…

Ethical Issues

1. Potential subjects were contacted via email

• by the leader of the group & given a link to a voluntary anonymous online survey (p. 80).

2. The online group excludes non- hoarders and/or clutterers

• Family members, researchers, professional organizers, & therapists (p. 80).

3. Study was approved:

• by the IRB at Boston University, University of Michigan, & Smith College (p. 81).

4. Each participant that completed the survey was offered a $15 gift card (p. 81).

Statistics

• Tables & Narrative found on pages 81-83

• Includes: tables 2, 3, & 5.

• Interesting Findings

• Demographics of participants

• % of ways participants connected to internet

• % of Long-term members who received psychotherapy

Descriptive

Statistics

• Statistical test used: Independent sample t-tests

• There was 1 dichotomy & 1 interval for each

IV/DV combination.

• Significant Findings (Table 4, p. 83)

SIR total, SIR clutter, SIR difficulty discarding,

and SIR acquisition all p<.01

CIR p=.04

• Non-significant findings (Table 4, p.83)

CGI

Inferential

Results & conclusions were clearly stated…

the summary was helpful in understanding the

study & future research necessary.

Key Findings

• The CBT-based online support group intervention was an effective treatment for hoarders.

• Yet, the findings show that the treatment does not control for all hoarding symptoms.

• In person group and/or individual CBT therapy have a more significant impact on the hoarding symptoms of acquisition

• The online support group did not impact that hoarding symptom as significantly.

“Next Steps “

• More tests

• systematized CBT-based online support groups for hoarding.

• intense online treatment for shorter duration.

• Examine CBT-based online treatment program for hoarders as care with different phases/levels, stand alone or supplemental.

It an extend access to mental

health treatment (p. 84).

Advantages: readily accessible, inexpensive, &

potentially less stigmatizing (p. 80).

More accessibility for

the hearing impaired

(p. 80).

Willingness to reveal

sensitive information (p. 80)

References

Muroff, J., Steketee, G., Himle, J., & Frost, R. (2010). Delivery of internet

treatment for compulsive hoarding (DITCH). Behaviour research and

therapy, 48(1), 79-85.