College papers help


An overview of the clinical psychology in medical research

Clinical Trials in Psychiatry and Clinical Psychology: Science or Product Testing? July 06, 2015; Accepted Date: September 21, 2015; Published Date: September 30, 2015 Citation: The methodology is utilized not only in medicine, but in other fields such as economics, education, and agriculture.

This unhappy circumstance results not from limitations of the RCT as a tool of inductive logic, but rather its use with data that are neither theoretically grounded nor psychometrically sound, under background conditions in which publication bias and economic interest converge to distort the rational, impartial use of the RCT. Until the biases due to human interests are reduced and the fields of psychiatry and clinical psychology are more scientifically advanced, the RCT will be of limited use.

What follows, however, is a discussion of its limitations as an explanatory device when specifically applied within psychiatry and clinical psychology and an explanation of why those limitations are particularly problematic for those fields. The typical state of the art therapy outcome study in psychiatry involves patients who have been categorized via the various DSMs and randomly assigned to an experimental condition in which they will receive one of several possible interventions: Preferably, the study is double-blinded, such that neither the patients nor study personnel should be aware of the treatment group to which the patients have been assigned.

  1. September 30, 2015 Citation. Also efforts to make sure that research using RCTs is adequately powered and controlled do seem to improve the rate of replicability [ 18 ].
  2. Given the developments at NIMH, this trend may continue.
  3. Until the biases due to human interests are reduced and the fields of psychiatry and clinical psychology are more scientifically advanced, the RCT will be of limited use.

The RCT was the cornerstone of what appeared to many during the late twentieth century to be a leap of scientific progress in the treatment of psychopathology. Putatively efficacious pharmacological therapies for mental illnesstested in RCTs and, as a consequence, approved by the Food and Drug Administration FDAwere plentiful and burgeoning.

How could this be, with so many investigations having reported statistically significant findings and what were thought to be clinically meaningful effect sizes? Part of the answer lies in the fit between the RCT and the scientific and societal contexts in which it has been applied.

Within the fields of psychiatry and clinical psychology, as they are presently constituted and operate within their cultures, the RCT is problematic as a tool of scientific inquiry.

  • This is because editors, reviewers, and investigators are human beings have extra-scientific interests and proclivities that can conflict with the canons of scientific rationality;
  • How are we to measure the mind and in so doing, what compromises and concessions is it scientifically acceptable to make?

This is not due to any fundamental defect within the RCT, assuming it is applied to phenomena for which measurement is unproblematic and when all non-trivial causal variables can be controlled or systematically manipulated. When it is utilized under the appropriate circumstances the RCT is impeccable as a tool of inductive logic in identifying cause and effect, or covariation among variables that is not due to chance. The contemporary RCT employed in medicine, is a slightly more refined version of forebearer factorial experimental designs, employed in education, psychology, and agriculture.

Factorial designs were created by Sir Ronald Fisher [ 6 ] decades before the first published study that we today would label a randomized clinical trial, which was a test of streptomycinin treating tuberculosis, published in 1948 [ 7 ].

Fisher designed the experimental structure that evolved into the RCT for the purpose of studying crop yields on those famous plots of land at the Rothamsted Experimental Station in Hertfordshire, England. There Fisher married the mathematics of probability and the inductive logic of John Stuart Mill [ 8 ]. Living things, however, are characterized by variability, complexity, and context dependency that makes the more straightforward observation methods of the natural science inadequate.

When the RCT is utilized in somatic medicine to treat a wellunderstood disease, e. Even under such ideal conditions, we can be led astray by the published findings of RCTs. This is because editors, reviewers, and investigators are human beings have extra-scientific interests and proclivities that can conflict with the canons of scientific rationality. We know that findings from the most prestigious medical journals RCTs and less well-controlled studies more than infrequently either are not replicated or are contradicted by subsequent studies [ 9 ].

Data from RCTs is more than occasionally selectively reported [ 10 ]. Some failed RCTs are never submitted for publication and journals in the biomedical sciences tend to favor novel, positive findings to a greater degree than fields such as chemistry and physics [ 11 ]. When the RCT is applied to treatment outcome research in psychiatry and clinical psychology, as opposed to somatic medicinevarious circumstances converge to make RCTs much more unlikely to produce sound inferences.

This unhappy circumstance results not from limitations of the RCT as a tool of inductive logic, but rather its use with data that are neither theoretically comprehended nor psychometrically unimpeachable, under background conditions in which publication bias and economic interest converge to distort the rational use of RCTs and the interpretations of their findings.

In psychiatry and clinical psychology we have an unfortunate confluence of several factors the militate against the effective use of RCTs: A large part of the problem that has been widely recognized is that the system of classification DSM lacks validity in the sense that both the systems of diagnostic classification and the psychiatric RCT outcome measures are at best indirect and highly inferential indicators that may not map onto any fundamental brain process.

  1. Factorial designs were created by Sir Ronald Fisher [ 6 ] decades before the first published study that we today would label a randomized clinical trial, which was a test of streptomycinin treating tuberculosis, published in 1948 [ 7 ]. September 21, 2015; Published Date.
  2. Living things, however, are characterized by variability, complexity, and context dependency that makes the more straightforward observation methods of the natural science inadequate.
  3. The contemporary RCT employed in medicine, is a slightly more refined version of forebearer factorial experimental designs, employed in education, psychology, and agriculture.

There is no biological test that confirms or disconfirms a DSM diagnosis or that of any other system of psychopathology classification. The structured clinical interview, really a guided patient self-report with some clinician inference alloyed, is the gold-standard method of diagnosis.

  • Factorial designs were created by Sir Ronald Fisher [ 6 ] decades before the first published study that we today would label a randomized clinical trial, which was a test of streptomycinin treating tuberculosis, published in 1948 [ 7 ];
  • Clinical ratings of patient status based on patient self-report are the primary outcome measures in many psychiatric studies;
  • This unhappy circumstance results not from limitations of the RCT as a tool of inductive logic, but rather its use with data that are neither theoretically comprehended nor psychometrically unimpeachable, under background conditions in which publication bias and economic interest converge to distort the rational use of RCTs and the interpretations of their findings;
  • When the RCT is applied to treatment outcome research in psychiatry and clinical psychology, as opposed to somatic medicine , various circumstances converge to make RCTs much more unlikely to produce sound inferences;
  • This unhappy circumstance results not from limitations of the RCT as a tool of inductive logic, but rather its use with data that are neither theoretically grounded nor psychometrically sound, under background conditions in which publication bias and economic interest converge to distort the rational, impartial use of the RCT;
  • When it is utilized under the appropriate circumstances the RCT is impeccable as a tool of inductive logic in identifying cause and effect, or covariation among variables that is not due to chance.

Clinical ratings of patient status based on patient self-report are the primary outcome measures in many psychiatric studies. These measures are highly subjective. Asserting that little substantive scientific understanding of underlying mechanisms of illness or cure has been generated by the last few decades of treatment outcome research, the NIMH has publically critiqued the symptom cluster approach underlying the DSMs and is searching for a system underlain by basic biological science [ 12 ].

The hope that differential response to treatments would validate diagnoses pharmacological dissection remains unfulfilled. Drugs with very different mechanisms of action have comparable effects on a single disorder, while singular treatments seem to produce effects in trials that are very broad and efficacious for a variety of maladies.

Rather than a multitude of treatments that are differentially effective for particular disorders, many treatments are found to be transdiagnostically efficacious, producing a kind of conceptual muddle, if one is a scientist seeking systematic relationships.

Clinical Overview

Capturing and assessing mental life never involves placing calipers on the thing itself. In psychometrics, the field that has arisen to cope with the additional measurement issues raised by a science of psychology, all measurement is essentially indirect and, therefore, uncertain and approximate. How are we to measure the mind and in so doing, what compromises and concessions is it scientifically acceptable to make?

In RCTs the objectivity required of scientific investigation is difficult to achieve when the dependent variables are, in essence, subjective data provided by participants or raters, data that cannot be validated against any objective standard of measurement.

The experimental control offered by true blinding is difficult to achieve among raters or patients.

Clinical Trials in Psychiatry and Clinical Psychology: Science or Product Testing?

In drug trials medication side effects often break the blind; in psychotherapy studies, complete blinding simply cannot occur because the patient has a particular awareness of the participation in the treatment. Market forces can have critical influence on study design and the reporting of results. Biased findings are more likely when psychiatric trials are sponsored by industries that will profit only if the trial is successful [ 1314 ].

Much of the data that we analyze turns out to be, in essence, stories told by one person to another person. Theoretically speaking, the RCT is a logically flawless method when applied under ideal conditions, but as it has been employed in psychiatry and clinical psychology it has manifested some shortcomings.

The field has clearly expected too much of it. And in many trials there has been an abject absence of adequate theory.

When the field makes more scientific progress and understands the mechanisms of disorder and treatment, all methods of research will likely be of greater use. In the meantime we need not solely rely on the RCT. Given the developments at NIMH, this trend may continue. Also efforts to make sure that research using RCTs is adequately powered and controlled do seem to improve the rate of replicability [ 18 ].

The use of meta-analysis can make us less reliant upon findings from a single high profile, multi-site trial and it biases it may contain. In conjunction with assessment of both statistical and clinical significance such knowledge may be of great practical utility and of social benefit, but limited in the fundamental scientific advance that it can promote.