BACKGROUND: Randomized controlled trials are considered the best scientific proof of effectiveness. There is increasing concern, though, about their feasibility in psychotherapy research. We discuss a quasi-experimental study design for situations in which a randomized controlled trial is not feasible. Here, as an alternative strategy, the propensity score (PS) method is used to correct for selection bias. METHODS: We used data from a Dutch research project, SCEPTRE (Study on Cost-Effectiveness of Personality Disorder Treatment). The sample consisted of 749 psychotherapy patients with personality pathology. We tested whether the PS method was useful and applicable. We examined differences between 2 treatment groups (short vs. long treatment duration) in pretreatment characteristics before and after PS correction. This revealed the impact of the PS on outcome differences. RESULTS: The PS offered statistical control over observed pretreatment differences between patients in a non-randomized study. CONCLUSIONS: When a randomized controlled trial is not possible, this quasi-experimental design using the PS could be a feasible alternative. Its advantages and limitations are discussed. Implemented carefully, this method is promising for future effectiveness research. 2008 S. Karger AG, Basel.
BACKGROUND: Randomized controlled trials are considered the best scientific proof of effectiveness. There is increasing concern, though, about their feasibility in psychotherapy research. We discuss a quasi-experimental study design for situations in which a randomized controlled trial is not feasible. Here, as an alternative strategy, the propensity score (PS) method is used to correct for selection bias. METHODS: We used data from a Dutch research project, SCEPTRE (Study on Cost-Effectiveness of Personality Disorder Treatment). The sample consisted of 749 psychotherapy patients with personality pathology. We tested whether the PS method was useful and applicable. We examined differences between 2 treatment groups (short vs. long treatment duration) in pretreatment characteristics before and after PS correction. This revealed the impact of the PS on outcome differences. RESULTS: The PS offered statistical control over observed pretreatment differences between patients in a non-randomized study. CONCLUSIONS: When a randomized controlled trial is not possible, this quasi-experimental design using the PS could be a feasible alternative. Its advantages and limitations are discussed. Implemented carefully, this method is promising for future effectiveness research. 2008 S. Karger AG, Basel.
Authors: Frederike Jörg; Johan Ormel; Sijmen A Reijneveld; Daniëlle E M C Jansen; Frank C Verhulst; Albertine J Oldehinkel Journal: PLoS One Date: 2012-09-19 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Tessa C C Quanjel; Marieke D Spreeuwenberg; Jeroen N Struijs; Caroline A Baan; Dirk Ruwaard Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2017-09-06 Impact factor: 2.655
Authors: Esther H A van den Bogaart; Marieke D Spreeuwenberg; Mariëlle E A L Kroese; Sofie J M van Hoof; Niels Hameleers; Dirk Ruwaard Journal: J Eval Clin Pract Date: 2020-06-17 Impact factor: 2.431
Authors: Teresa O'Rourke; Rachel Dale; Elke Humer; Thomas Probst; Paul Plener; Christoph Pieh Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-01-18 Impact factor: 3.390