The DOI matches its Crossref record; 204 of the 207 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The Intervention Selection Bias: An Underrecognized Confound in Intervention Research.
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.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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?
In the citing paper
“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
Citations
Cites
Items 201–204 of 204
Campbell, K. (1970) · doi:10.1007/978-1-349-00678-6_3 · Cited by 1
Littell, F. H. (1995) · Holocaust and Genocide Studies · doi:10.1093/hgs/9.2.251 · Cited by 1
Chamberlin, W. H., & Grey, I. (1965) · The Russian Review · doi:10.2307/126637 · Cited by 1
Adams, J. (1995) · doi:10.4095/205056 · Cited by 1
Flagged first, then by citations
3 of the 207 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.
Research works printed but not linked: 28
- Bee, 1998, Lifespan development
- 10.2307/1130721 · DOI
- 10.1001/jama.260.24.3617 · DOI
- 10.1001/jama.264.18.2389 · DOI
- Etaugh, 1995, The world of children.
- Faber, 1982, Life tables for the United Slates (SSA Publication No. 11-11534).
- 10.2307/1164888 · DOI
- Glazerman, 2002, Nonexperimentat replications of social experiments: A systematic review (MPR Ref. No. 8813-300).
- 10.1111/j.1365-2044.1998.00346.x · DOI
- 10.1001/jama.265.14.1849 · DOI
- Keith, 1986, Homework.
- 10.2307/1131709 · DOI
- Kutash, 1996, What works in children's mental health services?
- 10.1023/A:1026473020315 · DOI
- 10.1001/jama.270.20.2478 · DOI
- Magidson, 2000, On models used to adjust for preexisting differences., 181
- 10.2307/2579822 · DOI
- Motto, 1984, Suicide in male adolescents., 227
- Myers, 2004, Psychology
- 1991, Treatment of destructive behaviors in persons with developmental disabilities (NIH Publication No. 91-2410).
- Nelson, 2000, What works in family preservation services., 11
- Rindskopf, 2000, Plausible rival hypotheses in measurement, design, and scientific theory., 1
- 10.2307/2335942 · DOI
- Rothman, 1998a, Hill's criteria for causality., Vol. 3, 1920
- Rothman, 1998b, Modem epidemiology
- Schuster, 1994, Predicting intensive care unit outcomes, Critical Care Clinics, 10
- Walters, 1977, Punishment.
- 10.1002/(SICI)1099-0798(200001/02)18:1<23::AID-BSL375>3.0.CO;2-D · DOI
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Spanking and child outcomes: Old controversies and new meta-analyses.
Gershoff, E. T., & Grogan-Kaylor, A. (2016) · Journal of Family Psychology · doi:10.1037/fam0000191 · Cited by 931
“Baumrind, Larzelere, and Cowan (2002) reanalyzed the data from Gershoff (2002), separating out what they deemed harsh or potentially abusive forms of physical punishment.”
BackgroundLakey, B., & Orehek, E. (2011) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/a0023477 · Cited by 931
Lee, S. S., Humphreys, K. L., Flory, K., Liu, R., & Glass, K. (2011) · Clinical Psychology Review · doi:10.1016/j.cpr.2011.01.006 · Cited by 875
Sexual Orientation, Controversy, and Science
Bailey, J. M., Vasey, P. L., Diamond, L. M., Breedlove, S. M., Vilain, E. J. N., & Epprecht, M. (2016) · Gothic.net · doi:10.1177/1529100616637616 · Cited by 644
Hom, M. A., Stanley, I. H., & Joiner, T. E. (2015) · Clinical Psychology Review · doi:10.1016/j.cpr.2015.05.006 · Cited by 462
Metadata
- 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 › Public Administration › 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