The wait list control group serves two purposes. First, it provides an untreated comparison for the active experimental group to determine if the treatment had an effect. By serving as a comparison group, researchers are able to isolate the independent variable and look at the impact it had.
What is a wait list control group in therapy?
In psychotherapy research, a wait list control group is a group of participants who do not receive the experimental treatment, but who are put on a waiting list to receive the intervention after the active treatment group does. 1 . The wait list control group serves two purposes.
What is the difference between experimental and waiting list control groups?
The students in experimental groups followed counseling during the study, while the students in the waiting list control group were not. However, the students in waiting list control group will be given the treatment after the study for an ethical reason [46].
Are wait-list control conditions beneficial or detrimental to randomised controlled trials?
But changed outcomes that arise from a wait-list control condition can be detrimental rather than beneficial to a randomised controlled trial [46], and this occurred in the current study. ... ...
Can waiting list controls change attitudes and symptoms of illness?
Experimental subjects showed significant reductions in illness fears and attitudes, reported somatic symptoms and dysfunctional beliefs. Waiting-list controls also changed some illness attitudes, but showed no change in somatic symptoms and increased the number of visits to doctors.
Why do waitlist control groups suck?
Waitlist control groups were conceived by researchers as a cost-effective and ethical alternative control group when primarily studying psychotherapy interventions. That’s because providing a sham psychotherapy treatment is unethical — psychologists can’t knowingly provide you a treatment ...
Why are wait list groups not untreated?
Wait-list groups really are not untreated because they are contacted, consented, randomized, diagnosed, and measured.”. The problem comes with psychotherapy research that uses a wait-list control group to demonstrate that the treatment is more effective than simply time alone.
What is the gold standard in drug research?
It’s long been recognized that the gold standard in medical drug research is a randomized, placebo-controlled study. While not without its faults, this type of research ensures that the drug being tested is more effective (and just as safe) as a pill that contains no active ingredients.
Is there a pill for psychotherapy?
In psychotherapy research, there is no pill. So a long time ago, some researchers developed what they believed to be a similar control group as those receiving a placebo — the waitlist control group.
Is sitting with a participant a therapist?
It wouldn’t be therapy, because the person sitting with the participant isn’t a therapist and has no specific training in therapy . Maybe they’re a paid undergraduate student research assistant or a nurse practitioner (not a psychiatric nurse practitioner). Maybe instead of 50 minutes, they’re given only 20 minutes.
Can you get better with time alone?
Most researchers recognize that for many mental disorders — especially when the disorder is mild — many people will get better with time alone, on their own, with no active treatment. So the goal of such wait-list control-based research is to show the psychotherapy treatment is more effective than doing nothing.
Methods
The authors used a meta-analytic methodology called network meta-analysis (NMA).
Results
The meta-analysis included 49 randomised studies, representing 117 treatment arms.
Conclusions
The currently available best evidence, analysed by use of NMA, suggested that different control conditions lead to substantively different treatment effect estimates and that WL control may generate bigger effect size estimates for CBT than NT or PP.
Limitations
The methodological quality of the included studies was sub-optimal, as already remarked by other meta-analyses on CBT and discussed in previous Mental Elf blogs. In fact, only a quarter of the included studies were rated as having a low risk of bias
Link
Furukawa TA, Noma H, Caldwell DM, Honyashiki M, Shinohara K, Imai H, Chen P, Hunot V, Churchill R. Waiting list may be a nocebo condition in psychotherapy trials: a contribution from network meta-analysis. Acta Psychiatr Scand. 2014 Apr 4, doi:10.1111/acps.12275 [ PubMed abstract]
What is procrastination in school?
Procrastination refers to the tendency to postpone the initiation and completion of a given course of action. Approximately one-fifth of the adult population and half of the student population perceive themselves as being severe and chronic procrastinators. Albeit not a psychiatric diagnosis, procrastination has been shown to be associated with increased stress and anxiety, exacerbation of illness, and poorer performance in school and work. However, despite being severely debilitating, little is known about the population of procrastinators in terms of possible subgroups, and previous research has mainly investigated procrastination among university students. The current study examined data from a screening process recruiting participants to a randomized controlled trial of Internet-based cognitive behavior therapy for procrastination (Rozental et al., in press). In total, 710 treatment-seeking individuals completed self-report measures of procrastination, depression, anxiety, and quality of life. The results suggest that there might exist five separate subgroups, or clusters, of procrastinators: "Mild procrastinators" (24.93%), "Average procrastinators" (27.89%), "Well-adjusted procrastinators" (13.94%), "Severe procrastinators" (21.69%), and "Primarily depressed" (11.55%). Hence, there seems to be marked differences among procrastinators in terms of levels of severity, as well as a possible subgroup for which procrastinatory problems are primarily related to depression. Tailoring the treatment interventions to the specific procrastination profile of the individual could thus become important, as well as screening for comorbid psychiatric diagnoses in order to target difficulties associated with, for instance, depression.
How does CBT help with fatigue?
The aim of this study is to examine the frequency and severity of symptom deterioration during CBT for CFS. Data from 3 randomised controlled trials on CBT for CFS were pooled and reanalysed. Symptom deterioration during the trial was rated by patients and measured as deterioration in fatigue, pain, functional impairment and psychological distress. Both the frequency and severity of deterioration in these domains were compared between the patients receiving CBT and those in the control group. Predictors of symptom deterioration were identified by comparing their means in patients with and without an increase in fatigue. Statistically significant predictors were then combined in a logistic regression model. The frequency of symptom deterioration varied from 2 to 12% in patients receiving CBT and from 7 to 17% in the control group. None of the measures showed a significantly higher frequency of symptom deterioration in the CBT group. The severity of deterioration was also comparable in the CBT and in the control group. No predictors of symptom deterioration specific to CBT were found. Patients receiving CBT do not experience more frequent or more severe symptom deterioration than untreated patients. The reported deterioration during CBT seems to reflect the natural variation in symptoms. Thus, CBT is not only a helpful, but also a safe treatment for CFS.
What is LVMR in surgery?
Background Laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy (LVMR) is an established treatment for external full-thickness rectal prolapse. However, its clinical efficacy in patients with internal prolapse is uncertain due to the lack of high-quality evidence. Methods An individual level, stepped-wedge randomised trial has been designed to allow observer-blinded data comparisons between patients awaiting LVMR with those who have undergone surgery. Adults with symptomatic internal rectal prolapse, unresponsive to prior conservative management, will be eligible to participate. They will be randomised to three arms with different delays before surgery (0, 12 and 24 weeks). Efficacy outcome data will be collected at equally stepped time points (12, 24, 36 and 48 weeks). The primary objective is to determine clinical efficacy of LVMR compared to controls with reduction in the Patient Assessment of Constipation Quality of Life (PAC-QOL) at 24 weeks serving as the primary outcome. Secondary objectives are to determine: (1) the clinical effectiveness of LVMR to 48 weeks to a maximum of 72 weeks; (2) pre-operative determinants of outcome; (3) relevant health economics for LVMR; (4) qualitative evaluation of patient and health professional experience of LVMR and (5) 30-day morbidity and mortality rates. DiscussionAn individual-level, stepped-wedge, randomised trial serves the purpose of providing an untreated comparison for the active treatment group, while at the same time allowing the waiting-listed participants an opportunity to obtain the intervention at a later date. In keeping with the basic ethical tenets of this design, the average waiting time for LVMR (12 weeks) will be shorter than that for routine services (24 weeks). Trial registrationISRCTN registry, ISRCTN11747152. Registered on 30 September 2015. The trial was prospectively registered (first patient enrolled on 21 March 2016).
What is social communication disorder?
Introduction Social communication difficulties (SCDs) occur frequently after an acquired brain injury (ABI) and have disabling consequences, but effective interventions are scant. Group Interactive Structured Treatment (GIST) is a holistic group treatment targeting SCD that has received empirical support. Objective To determine the efficacy of two GIST protocols, standard GIST and a newly developed intensive GIST, comparing standard GIST results to a wait-list control group (WL), as well as to intensive GIST received by participants following WL. The within subject results for WL and intensive GIST will also be examined. Methods and analysis Sixty adults (18–75 years) with SCD after ABI will be recruited for this randomised controlled trial. Standard GIST (n=30) will be delivered via outpatient sessions for 2.5 hours once per week for 12 weeks, plus one initial orientation session. Participants will be assessed at preintervention and postintervention and at 3-month and 6-month follow-ups (T1-T4). Intensive GIST (n=30) participants will be admitted to an inpatient rehabilitation unit for 4 weeks (two times 3 days/week, two times 4 days/week) and receive full-day sessions each week. Those participants will complete four assessments (T1-T4) in 12-week intervals as part of WL, assessments preintensive and postintensive GIST and at 3-month and 6-month follow-ups (T4-T7). The primary outcome measure is the La Trobe Questionnaire (self-report). Secondary outcome measures include the Profile of Pragmatic Impairment in Communication, a test of emotion recognition, the Goal Attainment Scale and questionnaires addressing social, emotional and cognitive functions, self-efficacy and quality of life. Ethics and dissemination Results will be communicated through international, peer-reviewed and popular science journals and presentations at scientific conferences. The study is approved by the Regional Committees for Medical and Health Research Ethics Norway (2017/1360). The trial will be conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and reported in accordance with the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials 2010 statement and Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials recommendations. Trial registration number NCT03636399 .
What is comparative analysis in psychiatry?
In psychiatry, comparative analyses of therapeutic options and the aggregation of data from clinical trials across different therapeutic approaches play an important role in clinical decision making, treatment guidelines, and health policy. This approach assumes that trials of pharmacological and behavioural therapies generally produce the same level of evidence when properly designed. However, trial design for behavioural interventions has some unique characteristics and control groups vary widely, which influence the effects observed in any given trial. In this Personal View, we review various control conditions typically used in psychiatry, outline their effect on the internal validity and expected effect size of a trial, and propose a decision framework for choosing a control condition depending on the risk to the patient population and the stage of development of the therapeutic intervention. We argue that the choice of control group and its justification need to be taken into consideration when comparing behavioural and pharmacological therapies.
What is dialectical behavior therapy?
Key practitioner message: A 20-session dialectical behaviour therapy (DBT)-informed skills training is a promising adjunct intervention for patients with borderline personality disorder, in particular for reducing problems related to social role. Increases in assertive anger mediate the effects of DBT-informed skills training, whereas rejecting anger remains unchanged over the course of treatment. Short-term objectives for intervention might involve the specific increase of assertive anger in BPD, by using DBT-informed skills training; long-term objectives for intervention might involve a specific decrease of rejecting anger in BPD.
Is procrastination a persistent behavior?
Procrastination can be a persistent behavior pattern associated with personal distress. However, research investigating different treatment interventions is scarce, and no randomized controlled trial has examined the efficacy of cognitive-behavior therapy (CBT). Meanwhile, Internet-based CBT has been found promising for several conditions, but has not yet been used for procrastination. Participants (N = 150) were randomized to guided self-help, unguided self-help, and wait-list control. Outcome measures were administered before and after treatment, or weekly throughout the treatment period. They included the Pure Procrastination Scale, the Irrational Procrastination Scale, the Susceptibility to Temptation Scale, the Montgomery Åsberg Depression Rating Scale-Self-report version, the Generalized Anxiety Disorder Assessment, and the Quality of Life Inventory. The intention-to-treat principle was used for all statistical analyses. Mixed-effects models revealed moderate between-groups effect sizes comparing guided and unguided self-help with wait-list control; the Pure Procrastination Scale, Cohen's d = 0.70, 95% confidence interval (CI) [0.29, 1.10], and d = 0.50, 95% CI [0.10, 0.90], and the Irrational Procrastination Scale, d = 0.81 95% CI [0.40, 1.22], and d = 0.69 95% CI [0.29, 1.09]. Clinically significant change was achieved among 31.3-40.0% for guided self-help, compared with 24.0-36.0% for unguided self-help. Neither of the treatment conditions was found to be superior on any of the outcome measures, Fs (98, 65.17-72.55) < 1.70, p > .19. Internet-based CBT could be useful for managing self-reported difficulties due to procrastination, both with and without the guidance of a therapist. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2015 APA, all rights reserved).
Most recent answer
And David, I just saw your response. I wonder what I read that got my concerned about this. OK, I'll let it go. I appreciate the input.
All Answers (4)
If the waitlist control group is used in the analysis for comparison with the treated group (and you've randomized cases to condition), then I don't see how this results in a need for additional cases.
Similar questions and discussions
Statistical recommendations for an RCT with a waiting-list control group that includes post-treatment data of the control group?
How does a researcher test his hypothesis?
To test his hypothesis, the researcher selects a pool of participants who are all taking the same college math class. All students have been given the same instruction and resources over the course of the semester. He then randomly assigns participants to either the control group or the experimental group.
What temperature is the thermostat kicked up to?
At the same time, the thermostat is kicked up to a balmy 80 degrees Fahrenheit. As you can see, the procedures and materials used in both the control and experimental group are the same. The researcher has used the same room, same test administration procedures, and the same test in both groups. The only thing that differs is the amount ...
What can a researcher do after an experiment is complete?
After the experiment is complete, the researcher can then look at the test results and start making comparisons between the control group and the experimental group. What he discovers is that the test scores on the math exam were significantly lower in the experimental group than they were in the control group.
Why are the two groups comparable?
Because participants have been randomly assigned to either the control group or the experimental group, it can be assumed that the groups are comparable. Any differences between the two groups are therefore the result of the manipulations of the independent variable. The experimenters carry out the exact same procedures with both groups with ...
Why do experimenters compare the experimental group to the control group?
Experimenters compare the experimental group to the control group to determine if the treatment had an effect. By serving as a comparison group, researchers are able to isolate the independent variable and look at the impact it had.
What is a control group?
The control group is composed of participants who do not receive the experimental treatment. When conducting an experiment, these people are randomly assigned to be in this group. They also closely resemble the participants who are in the experimental group or the individuals who receive the treatment. While they do not receive the treatment, they ...
Why is a control group important?
Why a Control Group Is Important. While the control group does not receive treatment, it does play a critical role in the experimental process. This group serves as a benchmark, allowing researchers to compare the experimental group to the control group to see what sort of impact changes to the independent variable produced. 1 .
