What do We Know about Family Interventions for Psychosis at the Process Level? A Systematic Review

The evidence regarding effectiveness of family interventions for psychosis (FIP) is strong and consistent. However, there is a gap in the research on the process of these interventions, and little is known about their active ingredients. This review aims to identify the active ingredients of FIP. We conducted a systematic literature review, focusing on qualitative research, and analyzed 22 papers in total. We found a single study comprehensively exploring the process of FIP. All other studies focused on particular aspects of process‐related variables. The key elements of FIP seem to be the so‐called “common therapeutic factors”, followed by education about the illness and coping skills training. This review supports the value of a stepped model of intervention according to the needs of the families. However, the evidence reviewed also reveals a gap in the research findings based on the limited research available. FIP are complex, psychosocial interventions with multiple components, and more intensive, qualitative research is needed to establish linkages between process and outcome.     

Causal discovery and the problem of psychological interventions

Finding causes is a central goal in psychological research. In this paper, I argue based on the interventionist approach to causal discovery that the search for psychological causes faces great obstacles. Psychological interventions are likely to be fat-handed: they change several variables simultaneously, and it is not known to what extent such interventions give leverage for causal inference. Moreover, due to problems of measurement, the degree to which an intervention was fat-handed, or more generally, what the intervention in fact did, is difficult to reliably estimate. A further complication is that the causal findings in psychology are typically made at the population level, and such findings do not allow inferences to individual-level causal relationships. I also discuss the implications of these problems for research, as well as various ways of addressing them, such as focusing more on the discovery of robust but non-causal patterns.     

A theory-based intervention to prevent calibration effects in serial sport performance evaluations

ObjectivesSerial performance evaluations show calibration effects: Judges avoid extreme categories in the beginning (e.g. best or worst) because they need to calibrate an internal judgment scale (Unkelbach et al., 2012). Successful calibration is therefore important for fair and unbiased evaluations. A central prerequisite for successful calibration is knowledge about the performance range. The present study tests whether advance knowledge about the range (best and worst) of performances in a series reduces calibration effects.DesignA 2 × 2 × 2 design was developed with two between subject factors: the knowledge about the performance range (with vs. without) and two different talent tests (specific vs. unspecific). As within subject factor the position of the performances in the series (position 1–10 vs. 11–20) was integrated. The combination of the between subject factors resulted in four experimental conditions.MethodHandball coaches were randomly assigned to one of the conditions. Afterwards twenty performances were evaluated in a randomized order by the coaches.ResultsWithout knowledge about the range, they showed the expected avoidance of extreme categories in the beginning independent of the presented talent test. However, observing the best and worst performance in advance prevented the biases. Range-presentation is therefore a viable theory-based intervention to improve fairness in serial judgments.