Cited by 140Psychotherapy Techniques and ApplicationsStatistical Methods in Clinical TrialsTraumatic Brain Injury Research

The dilemma of the control condition in experience-based cognitive and behavioural treatment research

Hart, Tessa, Fann, Jesse R., Novack, Thomas A.·2008·Neuropsychological Rehabilitation

Abstract

Rehabilitation using cognitive and behavioural treatment methods (i.e., experience-based interventions) faces particular challenges in improving its evidence base through rigorous studies such as randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Experience-based treatments are often complex, with multiple "active ingredients" that may be difficult to characterise. In addition to the difficulty in specifying treatment ingredients, experience-based rehabilitation researchers face challenges in designing or selecting appropriate control or comparison conditions to test the efficacy of complex treatments. Based on lessons learned in designing a cognitive-behavioural intervention for anger self-management for people with traumatic brain injury (TBI) for the National Institutes of Health (NIH)-funded TBI Clinical Trials Network, we review the advantages, disadvantages and applications of a variety of control conditions for experience-based interventions. We discuss controls in which active treatments are withheld (no-treatment controls, waitlist controls, and placebo-analogue designs); controls that involve comparison to naturally occurring or devised usual care treatments; and conditions that compare active treatments (dismantling designs, dose controls, and equivalence trials). Recommendations for selecting and developing control groups that maximise both equipoise and participant enrolment/retention are discussed.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/09602010601082359

Cites

39 of 39 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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hart, T., Fann, J. R., & Novack, T. A.
Affiliations
  • Thomas Jefferson University (US)
  • University of Washington (US)
  • University of Alabama at Birmingham (US)
Corresponding author
Hart, Tessa
Venue
Neuropsychological Rehabilitation
Published
2008-01
Volume
18
Issue
1
Pages
1-21
ISSN
  • 0960-2011 (ISSN-L)
  • 1464-0694
OpenAlex
W2019260073
Cited by
140
References
39
Citations by year
2025: 2 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 16 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 12 · 2012: 5
FWCI
6.19
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Neuropsychological Rehabilitation (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (U01HD042738, R24HD050836)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychotherapy Techniques and Applications
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Traumatic Brain Injury Research
Keywords
control conditions, traumatic brain injury, randomized controlled trials, waitlist control, equivalence trials, equipoise, participant retention
MeSH terms
Anger, Behavior Therapy, Brain Injuries, Humans, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Evidence-Based Medicine, Therapeutic Human Experimentation

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