Cited by 144Advanced Causal Inference TechniquesMeta-analysis and systematic reviewsEvaluation and Performance Assessment

The Intervention Selection Bias: An Underrecognized Confound in Intervention Research.

Larzelere, Robert E., Kuhn, Brett R., Johnson, Byron·2004·Psychological Bulletin

Abstract

Selection bias can be the most important threat to internal validity in intervention research, but is often insufficiently recognized and controlled. The bias is illustrated in research on parental interventions (punishment, homework assistance); medical interventions (hospitalization); and psychological interventions for suicide risk, sex offending, and juvenile delinquency. The intervention selection bias is most adequately controlled in randomized studies or strong quasi-experimental designs, although recent statistical innovations can enhance weaker designs. The most important points are to increase awareness of the intervention selection bias and to systematically evaluate plausible alternative explanations of data before making causal conclusions.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/0033-2909.130.2.289

Cites

204 of 204 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • There is selection bias in who gets spanked: children with more behavior problems elicit more discipline generally and spanking in particular.

    “there is selection bias in who gets spanked—children with more behavior problems elicit more discipline generally and spanking in particular (Larzelere, Kuhn, & Johnson, 2004).”

    From Spanking and child outcomes: Old controversies and new meta-analyses. (2016) · cites this paper as Larzelere, Kuhn, & Johnson, 2004

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

3 of the 207 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Larzelere, R. E., Kuhn, B. R., & Johnson, B.
Affiliations
  • University of Nebraska Medical Center (US)
  • University of Pennsylvania (US)
Venue
Psychological Bulletin
Published
2004-03
Volume
130
Issue
2
Pages
289-303
ISSN
  • 0033-2909 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-1455
OpenAlex
W2125639870
Cited by
144
References
207
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 6
FWCI
5.06
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Psychological Bulletin (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Advanced Causal Inference Techniques
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Evaluation and Performance Assessment
Keywords
confounding, internal validity, parental intervention, punishment, homework help, medical interventions, hospitalization, psychological intervention, suicide risk, sexual offending, juvenile delinquency, randomized controlled trials, quasi-experimental design, causal inference
MeSH terms
Mental Disorders, Child, Female, Humans, Juvenile Delinquency, Male, Psychotherapy, Punishment, Research Design, Social Support, Suicide, Attempted, Parenting

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review