尽量减少治疗结果估算中的测量误差:一项荟萃分析比较了赌博时间表跟踪反馈与其他赌博行为自我报告评估之间的估计值。

IF 3.2 2区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY Psychology of Addictive Behaviors Pub Date : 2024-09-01 Epub Date: 2024-07-25 DOI:10.1037/adb0001024
Margaret L Paul, Maria Meinerding, Jeremiah Weinstock, Meredith K Ginley, James P Whelan, Rory A Pfund
{"title":"尽量减少治疗结果估算中的测量误差:一项荟萃分析比较了赌博时间表跟踪反馈与其他赌博行为自我报告评估之间的估计值。","authors":"Margaret L Paul, Maria Meinerding, Jeremiah Weinstock, Meredith K Ginley, James P Whelan, Rory A Pfund","doi":"10.1037/adb0001024","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>The aim of the current meta-analysis was to examine potential differences in posttreatment effect size estimates for gambling frequency (i.e., the number of days gambled) and gambling expenditure (i.e., the amount of money gambled) when using the gambling timeline followback (G-TLFB) versus other self-report assessments.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>Using an open-access meta-analysis database of studies on cognitive behavioral treatment for gambling disorder, 22 studies representing 2,824 participants were identified for inclusion. Hedges's g effect sizes representing posttreatment differences on gambling frequency and expenditure between cognitive behavioral treatment versus inactive and minimal treatment controls were calculated, and mixed-effect subgroup analyses examined the effect sizes for each outcome between studies using the G-TLFB versus other self-report assessments.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Mixed-effect subgroup analyses indicated that the effect size for gambling frequency was significantly lower for studies using the G-TLFB (<i>g</i> = -0.15) than studies using other self-report assessments (<i>g</i> = -0.71). When examining whether the use of the G-TLFB was associated with the posttreatment effect size for gambling frequency in a random-effect metaregression model that controlled for study grant funding status, the use of the G-TLFB was not significantly associated with effect size. The effect size for gambling expenditure was not significantly different between studies using the G-TLFB (<i>g</i> = -0.22) versus studies using other self-report assessments (<i>g</i> = -0.38).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The G-TLFB yields more conservative and precise effect size estimates of posttreatment gambling frequency, but not gambling expenditure, than other self-report assessments. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":48325,"journal":{"name":"Psychology of Addictive Behaviors","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Minimizing measurement error in treatment outcome estimates: A meta-analysis comparing estimates between the gambling timeline followback and other self-report assessments of gambling behavior.\",\"authors\":\"Margaret L Paul, Maria Meinerding, Jeremiah Weinstock, Meredith K Ginley, James P Whelan, Rory A Pfund\",\"doi\":\"10.1037/adb0001024\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>The aim of the current meta-analysis was to examine potential differences in posttreatment effect size estimates for gambling frequency (i.e., the number of days gambled) and gambling expenditure (i.e., the amount of money gambled) when using the gambling timeline followback (G-TLFB) versus other self-report assessments.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>Using an open-access meta-analysis database of studies on cognitive behavioral treatment for gambling disorder, 22 studies representing 2,824 participants were identified for inclusion. Hedges's g effect sizes representing posttreatment differences on gambling frequency and expenditure between cognitive behavioral treatment versus inactive and minimal treatment controls were calculated, and mixed-effect subgroup analyses examined the effect sizes for each outcome between studies using the G-TLFB versus other self-report assessments.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Mixed-effect subgroup analyses indicated that the effect size for gambling frequency was significantly lower for studies using the G-TLFB (<i>g</i> = -0.15) than studies using other self-report assessments (<i>g</i> = -0.71). When examining whether the use of the G-TLFB was associated with the posttreatment effect size for gambling frequency in a random-effect metaregression model that controlled for study grant funding status, the use of the G-TLFB was not significantly associated with effect size. The effect size for gambling expenditure was not significantly different between studies using the G-TLFB (<i>g</i> = -0.22) versus studies using other self-report assessments (<i>g</i> = -0.38).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The G-TLFB yields more conservative and precise effect size estimates of posttreatment gambling frequency, but not gambling expenditure, than other self-report assessments. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48325,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Psychology of Addictive Behaviors\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Psychology of Addictive Behaviors\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1037/adb0001024\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/7/25 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Psychology of Addictive Behaviors","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/adb0001024","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/7/25 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:目前的荟萃分析旨在研究在使用赌博时间轴回溯法(G-TLFB)与其他自我报告评估方法时,治疗后对赌博频率(即赌博天数)和赌博支出(即赌博金额)的效果大小估计可能存在的差异:方法:利用一个开放存取的认知行为治疗赌博障碍研究荟萃分析数据库,确定了代表 2,824 名参与者的 22 项研究。计算了认知行为治疗与非活动治疗和最少治疗对照组之间治疗后赌博频率和支出差异的赫奇斯g效应大小,并进行了混合效应亚组分析,检验了使用G-TLFB与其他自我报告评估的研究之间每种结果的效应大小:混合效应亚组分析表明,使用G-TLFB的研究在赌博频率方面的效应大小(g = -0.15)明显低于使用其他自我报告评估方法的研究(g = -0.71)。在控制研究资助状况的随机效应元回归模型中,当考察G-TLFB的使用是否与治疗后赌博频率的效应大小相关时,G-TLFB的使用与效应大小并无显著关联。使用G-TLFB的研究(g = -0.22)与使用其他自我报告评估的研究(g = -0.38)相比,赌博支出的效应大小没有显著差异:结论:与其他自我报告评估相比,G-TLFB 对治疗后赌博频率(而非赌博支出)的效应大小估计更为保守和精确。(PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, 版权所有)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Minimizing measurement error in treatment outcome estimates: A meta-analysis comparing estimates between the gambling timeline followback and other self-report assessments of gambling behavior.

Objective: The aim of the current meta-analysis was to examine potential differences in posttreatment effect size estimates for gambling frequency (i.e., the number of days gambled) and gambling expenditure (i.e., the amount of money gambled) when using the gambling timeline followback (G-TLFB) versus other self-report assessments.

Method: Using an open-access meta-analysis database of studies on cognitive behavioral treatment for gambling disorder, 22 studies representing 2,824 participants were identified for inclusion. Hedges's g effect sizes representing posttreatment differences on gambling frequency and expenditure between cognitive behavioral treatment versus inactive and minimal treatment controls were calculated, and mixed-effect subgroup analyses examined the effect sizes for each outcome between studies using the G-TLFB versus other self-report assessments.

Results: Mixed-effect subgroup analyses indicated that the effect size for gambling frequency was significantly lower for studies using the G-TLFB (g = -0.15) than studies using other self-report assessments (g = -0.71). When examining whether the use of the G-TLFB was associated with the posttreatment effect size for gambling frequency in a random-effect metaregression model that controlled for study grant funding status, the use of the G-TLFB was not significantly associated with effect size. The effect size for gambling expenditure was not significantly different between studies using the G-TLFB (g = -0.22) versus studies using other self-report assessments (g = -0.38).

Conclusions: The G-TLFB yields more conservative and precise effect size estimates of posttreatment gambling frequency, but not gambling expenditure, than other self-report assessments. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.90
自引率
11.80%
发文量
165
期刊介绍: Psychology of Addictive Behaviors publishes peer-reviewed original articles related to the psychological aspects of addictive behaviors. The journal includes articles on the following topics: - alcohol and alcoholism - drug use and abuse - eating disorders - smoking and nicotine addiction, and other excessive behaviors (e.g., gambling) Full-length research reports, literature reviews, brief reports, and comments are published.
期刊最新文献
Effects of behavioral interventions on stress reactivity in adults with substance use disorders. The lived experience of gambling-related harm in natural language. Social decision making in binge drinking: An exploration through moral dilemmas. Effect of menstrual cycle on rewarding properties of alcohol cues in women. Longitudinal measurement invariance of constructs derived from the addiction cycle.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1