Advertisement

Mental Health Services Research

, Volume 6, Issue 3, pp 143–153 | Cite as

Untangling the Web: An Approach to Analyzing the Impacts of Individually Tailored, Multicomponent Treatment Interventions

  • Roger A. BoothroydEmail author
  • Steven M. Banks
  • Mary E. Evans
  • Paul E. Greenbaum
  • Eric Brown
Article

Abstract

In this paper the use of a maximum individualized change score is proposed as an analytic alternative to the more traditional MANOVA and latent variable approaches in studies examining the use of individually tailored interventions. This strategy offers a number of significant advantages when multiple indicators are used to assess a broad array of potential outcomes that might result from client-specific treatments. Data on 146 children from a study examining the effectiveness of 3 short-term intensive in-home services were used to contrast the results of our proposed analytic strategy with those from the MANOVA and latent variable approaches. Results indicate that the maximum individualized change score approach improves the outcome comparisons among the 3 treatment interventions and eliminates some concerns regarding subjectivity that exists with procedures such as goal-attainment scaling. A simulation study suggests the maximum change score statistics is a nonbiased estimate for assessing between-group differences in program effectiveness and has more power than MANOVA to produce significant differences when smaller program effects exist. Suggestions for strengthening this analytic approach as well as examples regarding use of this technique in other research contexts are also provided.

maximum change change score analysis treatment outcomes individual tailored treatments 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

REFERENCES

  1. Achenbach, T. M. (1991). Manual for the child behavior checklist/4-18 and 1991 profile. Burlington: University of Vermont, Department of Psychiatry.Google Scholar
  2. Barlow, R. E., Bartholomew, D. J., Bremmer, J. M., & Brunk, H. D. (1972). Statistical inferences under ordered restrictions.New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  3. Barrera,M., Jr., & Ainlay, S. L. (1983). The structure of social support: Aconceptual and empirical analysis. Journal of Community Psychology, 11 ,133–143.Google Scholar
  4. Bickman, L., Lambert, E. W., Andrade, A. R., & Penaloza, R. V. (2000). The Fort Bragg continuum of care for children and adolescents: Mental health outcomes over 5 years. Journal of Community and Clinical Psychology, 68 ,710–716.Google Scholar
  5. Barrera, M., Jr., Sandler, I. N., & Ramsay, T. B. (1981). Preliminary development of a scale of social support: Studies on college students. American Journal of Community Psychology, 9 ,435–447.Google Scholar
  6. Bollen, K., & Lennox, R. (1991). Conventional wisdom on measurement: A structural equation perspective. Psychological Bulletin, 110 ,305–314.Google Scholar
  7. Boothroyd, R. A., & Evans, M. E. (1997). Preliminary manual for the Parent Self-Efficacy Scale. Albany: New York State Office of Mental Health, Bureau of Evaluation and Services Research.Google Scholar
  8. Boothroyd, R. A., Evans, M. E., Greenbaum, P. E., & Brown, E. (1997, February). Three models of intensive in-home services: Three year outcomes. Paper presented at the 10th annual Research Conference onASystem of Care for Children'sMental Health: Expanding the Research Base, Tampa, FL.Google Scholar
  9. Clark, H. B., Lee, B., Prange, M. E., & McDonald, B. A. (1996). Children lost within the foster care system: Can wraparound service strategies improve placement outcomes? Journal of Child and Family Studies, 5(1), 39–54.Google Scholar
  10. Cytrybaum, S., Ginath, Y., Birdwell, J., & Brandt, L. (1979). Goal attainment scaling: A critical review. Evaluation Quarterly, 3(1), 5–40.Google Scholar
  11. Dawson, J. D., & Lagakos, S. W. (1993). Size and power of two sample tests of repeated measures data. Biometrics, 49, 1022–1032.Google Scholar
  12. DiBiseglie, A.M., Martin, P., Kassianidies, C., Lisker-Melman,M., Murray, L., Waggoner, J., et al. (1989). A randomized double blind placebo-controlled trial of recombinant human alpha interferon for chronic non-A, non-B (type C) hepatitis. New England Journal of Medicine, 321 ,1506–1510.Google Scholar
  13. Dunteman, G. H. (1989). Principal components analysis (Vol. 07-069). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  14. Evans, M. E. (1992). Outcomes of three children's psychiatric emergency programs(Research funded by the National Institute of Mental Health and the Center for Mental Health Services). Albany, NY: Author.Google Scholar
  15. Evans, M. E., & Banks, S. M. (1996). The Fort Bragg managed care experiment. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 5 ,169–172.Google Scholar
  16. Evans, M. E., Boothroyd, R. A., & Armstrong, M. I. (1997). Development and implementation of an experimental study of the effectiveness of intensive in-home crisis services for children and their families. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 5 ,93–105.Google Scholar
  17. Evans, M. E., Boothroyd, R. A., Armstrong, M. I., Greenbaum, P. E., Brown, E., & Kuppinger, A. D. (2003). An experimental study of the effectiveness of intensive in-home crisis services for children and their families: Program outcomes. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 11 ,92–102 and 121.Google Scholar
  18. Evans, M. E., Boothroyd, R. A., Greenbaum, P. E., Brown, E., Armstrong, M. I., & Kuppinger, A. D. (2001). Outcomes associated with clinical profiles of children in psychiatric crisis enrolled in intensive, in-home interventions. Mental Health Services Research, 3 ,35–44.Google Scholar
  19. Evans, M. E., Armstrong, M. I., & Kuppinger, A. D. (1996). Family-centered intensive case management: A step toward understanding individualized care. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 5(1), 55–65.Google Scholar
  20. Freeman, B. J. (1985). Review of the child behavioral checklist. In V. Mitchell, Jr. (Ed.), Ninth mental measurement yearbook (pp. 213–214). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.Google Scholar
  21. Henggeler, S. W., Melton, G. B., Smith, L. A., Schoenwald, S. A., & Hanley, J. H. (1993). Family preservation using multisystematic treatment: Long-term follow-up to a clinical trial with serious juvenile offenders. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 2 ,283–293.Google Scholar
  22. Hampson, R. B., Hulgus, Y. F., & Beavers, W. R. (1991). Comparisons of self-report measures of Beavers systems model and Olson's circumplex model. Journal of Family Psychology, 4(8), 326–340.Google Scholar
  23. Henggeler, S.W., Schoenwald, S. K., & Pickrel, S. G. (1995). Multisystemic therapy: Bridging the gap between university-and community-based treatment. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 63 ,709–717.Google Scholar
  24. Hoagwood, K., Jensen, P. S., Petti, T., & Burns, B. J. (1996). Outcomes of mental health care for children and adolescents: A comprehensive conceptual model. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 35 ,1005–1063.Google Scholar
  25. Kaiser, H. F. (1960). The application of electronic computers to factor analysis. Educational and Psychological Measurementt, 20,141Google Scholar
  26. Kaiser, H. F. (1974). An index of factorial simplicity. Psychometrika, 39 ,31–36.Google Scholar
  27. Kenny, J. M., Madsen, B., Flemming, T., & Haapala, D. A. (1977). Homebuilders: Keeping families together. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 45 ,667–673.Google Scholar
  28. Kim, J. O., & Mueller, C. W. (1982). Introduction to factor analysis: What it is and how to do it (Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences #13). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  29. Kiresuk, T. J., & Sherman, R. E. (1968). Goal attainment scaling: A general method for evaluating comprehensive community mental health programs. Community Mental Health Journal, 4 ,443–453.Google Scholar
  30. Lehmann, E. L. (1975). Nonparametrics: Statistical methods based on ranks. Oakland, CA: Holden-Day.Google Scholar
  31. McConaughy, S. H., & Achenbach, T. M. (1988). Practical guide for the child behavior checklist and related materials. Burlington: University of Vermont, Department of Psychiatry.Google Scholar
  32. Magura, S., & Moses, B. S. (1986). The child well-being scales. In Outcome measures for child welfare services. Washington, DC: Child Welfare League of America.Google Scholar
  33. Munger, R. L. (1997). Ecological trajectories in child mental health. In S. W. Henggeler & A. B. Santos (Eds.), Innovative approaches for difficult-to-treat populations (pp. 3–25). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Press.Google Scholar
  34. Olson, D. H. (1991). Use of FACES II versus FACES III. St. Paul: University of Minnesota, Family Inventories Project.Google Scholar
  35. Olson, D. H., & Tiesel, J. (1991, April). FACES III: Linear scoring & interpretation. St. Paul: University of Minnesota, Family Social Science.Google Scholar
  36. Piers, E. V. (1984). Manual for the Piers-Harris children's selfconcept scale. Nashville, TN: Counselor Recordings and Tests.Google Scholar
  37. Preas, H. L., II, Jubran, A., Vandivier, R. W., Reda, D., Godin, P. J., Banks, S. M., et al. (2001). Effect of endotoxin on ventilation and breath variability: Role of cyclooxygenase pathway. American Journal of Respiratory Critical Care Medicine, 164 ,620–626.Google Scholar
  38. Stroul, B. A., & Friedman, R. M. (1997). The system of care concept and philosophy. In B. A. Stroul (Ed.), Children's mental health: Creating systems of care in a changing society (pp. 3–21). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media, Inc. 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Roger A. Boothroyd
    • 1
    Email author
  • Steven M. Banks
    • 2
  • Mary E. Evans
    • 3
  • Paul E. Greenbaum
    • 4
  • Eric Brown
    • 5
  1. 1.Department of Mental Health Law and Policy, Louis de la Parte Florida Mental Health InstituteUniversity of South FloridaTampa
  2. 2.Louis de la Parte Florida Mental Health InstituteUniversity of South FloridaTampa
  3. 3.College of Nursing MDC 22University of South FloridaTampa
  4. 4.Department of Child and Family Studies, Louis de la Parte Florida Mental Health InstituteUniversity of South FloridaTampa
  5. 5.Res Sci/Eng 3, SDRG RCRUniversity of WashingtonSeattle

Personalised recommendations