Cited by 212Pain Management and Placebo EffectStatistical Methods in Clinical TrialsPsychotherapy Techniques and Applications

Development of the Stanford Expectations of Treatment Scale (SETS): A tool for measuring patient outcome expectancy in clinical trials

Younger, Jarred, Gandhi, Vanisha, Hubbard, Emily, Mackey, Sean·2012·Clinical Trials

Abstract

Background: A patient’s response to treatment may be influenced by the expectations that the patient has before initiating treatment. In the context of clinical trials, the influence of participant expectancy may blur the distinction between real and sham treatments, reducing statistical power to detect specific treatment effects. There is therefore a need for a tool that prospectively predicts expectancy effects on treatment outcomes across a wide range of treatment modalities. Purpose: To help assess expectancy effects, we created the Stanford Expectations of Treatment Scale (SETS): an instrument for measuring positive and negative treatment expectancies. Internal reliability of the instrument was tested in Study 1. Criterion validity of the instrument (convergent, discriminant, and predictive) was assessed in Studies 2 and 3. Methods: The instrument was developed using 200 participants in Study 1. Reliability and validity assessments were made with an additional 423 participants in Studies 2 and 3. Results: The final six-item SETS contains two subscales: positive expectancy (α = 0.81–0.88) and negative expectancy (α = 0.81–0.86). The subscales predict a significant amount of outcome variance (between 12% and 18%) in patients receiving surgical and pain interventions. The SETS is simple to administer, score, and interpret. Conclusion: The SETS may be used in clinical trials to improve statistical sensitivity for detecting treatment differences or in clinical settings to identify patients with poor treatment expectancies.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/1740774512465064

Cites

70 of 70 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
Younger, J., Gandhi, V., Hubbard, E., & Mackey, S.
Affiliations
Stanford Medicine (US)
Venue
Clinical Trials
Published
2012-11-20
Volume
9
Issue
6
Pages
767-776
ISSN
  • 1740-7745 (ISSN-L)
  • 1740-7753
OpenAlex
W2020646491
Cited by
212
References
69
Citations by year
2026: 27 · 2025: 33 · 2024: 24 · 2023: 23 · 2022: 26 · 2021: 21 · 2020: 14 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 15 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 1
FWCI
0.98
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Clinical Trials (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
School of Medicine, Stanford University
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Pain Management and Placebo Effect
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychotherapy Techniques and Applications
Keywords
treatment expectancy, patient expectations, placebo effect, expectancy effects, scale development, psychometric validation, surgical treatment, pain interventions, statistical power
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Attitude to Health, Clinical Trials as Topic, Data Interpretation, Statistical, Factor Analysis, Statistical, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Predictive Value of Tests, Psychometrics, Surveys and Questionnaires, Research Design, Reproducibility of Results, Placebo Effect, Research Subjects

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