Training Addiction Counselors to Implement an Evidence-Based Intervention: Strategies for Increasing Organizational and Provider Acceptance

One barrier to widespread public access to empirically supported treatments (ESTs) is the limited availability and high cost of professionals trained to deliver them. Our earlier work from 2 clinical trials demonstrated that front-line addiction counselors could be trained to deliver a manualized, group-based cognitive behavioral therapy (GCBT) for depression, a prototypic example of an EST, with a high level of adherence and competence. This follow-up article provides specific recommendations for the selection and initial training of counselors, and for the structure and process of their ongoing clinical supervision. We highlight unique challenges in working with counselors unaccustomed to traditional clinical supervision. The recommendations are based on comprehensive feedback derived from clinician notes taken throughout the clinical trials, a focus group with counselors conducted 1 year following implementation, and interviews with key organization executives and administrators.     

A validation study of Belbin's team roles

The Belbin team role preferences of the members of 55 teams were assessed by three independent methods: (1) Cattell's 16PF (Form 5) personality questionnaire, (2) video observation of a business simulation exercise and subsequent analysis with a Belbin behavioural checklist, and (3) Saville and Holdsworth's Occupational Personality Questionnaire. The 338 participants were drawn in approximately equal measure from managerial and non-managerial levels from equal numbers of manufacturing and public service organizations. A multitrait-multimethod correlation matrix derived from the data collected from the participants was employed to evaluate the convergent and discriminant validities of the Belbin team roles. Application of the Campbell and Fiske criteria to the matrix did not produce clear support for discriminant validity. Application of a correlated uniqueness model in a confirmatory factor analysis showed the Belbin team role model to be overparameterized and to lack both convergent and discriminant validity. Further modelling revealed that the Belbin team roles fit easily into a “Big Five” five-factor personality framework.     

Task differences on conservation and transitivity problems

Task differences were assessed with 120 first graders in a 2 × 3 × 3 factorial design combining Socioeconomic level (middle vs lower), Concepts (conservation of length, transitivity of length, and conservation of continuous quantity), and Tasks (three tasks for each concept selected on the basis of frequency of usage). As predicted, task by concept interactions were found on all four task response measures. This finding is consistent with Piaget's concept of horizontal decalage and with Flavell and Wohlwill's competence-performance model, which proposes that intermediate phases of stage transition are characterized by considerable intertask differences and initial and final phases by intertask consistency in performance. The importance of investigating the effects of task variables on multiple dependent measures at various age levels and points in time was emphasized. Concept, task, and socioeconomic class differences were also found on some of the measures.     

Fixed Effects vs. Random Effects Meta-Analysis Models: Implications for Cumulative Research Knowledge

Research conclusions in the social sciences are increasingly based on meta-analysis, making questions of the accuracy of meta-analysis critical to the integrity of the base of cumulative knowledge. Both fixed effects (FE) and random effects (RE) meta-analysis models have been used widely in published meta-analyses. This article shows that FE models typically manifest a substantial Type I bias in significance tests for mean effect sizes and for moderator variables (interactions), while RE models do not. Likewise, FE models, but not RE models, yield confidence intervals for mean effect sizes that are narrower than their nominal width, thereby overstating the degree of precision in meta-analysis findings. This article demonstrates analytically that these biases in FE procedures are large enough to create serious distortions in conclusions about cumulative knowledge in the research literature. We therefore recommend that RE methods routinely be employed in meta-analysis in preference to FE methods.