The perils of ignoring design effects in experimental studies: Lessons from a mammography screening trial

Psychology and Health

Volumn 28, Issue 5, 2013, Pages 593-602

  Glenn, Beth A ^a   Bastani, Roshan ^a   Maxwell, Annette E ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

cancer screening; external validity; methodology; randomised controlled trial; research design

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; BREAST TUMOR; COHORT ANALYSIS; EARLY DIAGNOSIS; FEMALE; HUMAN; MAMMOGRAPHY; METHODOLOGY; MIDDLE AGED; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL (TOPIC); REPRODUCIBILITY; RISK ASSESSMENT; STANDARD; UTILIZATION REVIEW;

ADULT; AGED; BREAST NEOPLASMS; COHORT STUDIES; EARLY DETECTION OF CANCER; FEMALE; HUMANS; MAMMOGRAPHY; MIDDLE AGED; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS AS TOPIC; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; RESEARCH DESIGN; RISK ASSESSMENT;

EID: 84876324456     PISSN: 08870446     EISSN: 14768321     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/08870446.2012.756880     Document Type: Article

References (22)

1. Bastani, R., Maxwell, A. and Bradford, C. 1996. A tumor registry as a tool for recruiting a multi-ethnic sample of women at high risk for breast cancer. Journal of Registry Management, 23: 74-78.
2. Bastani, R., Maxwell, A.E., Bradford, C., Das, I.P. and Yan, K.X. 1999. Tailored risk notification for women with a family history of breast cancer. Preventive Medicine, 29: 355-364.
3. Bonell, C.P., Hargreaves, J., Cousens, S., Ross, D., Hayes, R., Petticrew, M. and Kirkwood, B.R. 2011. Alternatives to randomisation in the evaluation of public health interventions: Design challenges and solutions. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 65: 582-587.
4. Cousens, S., Hargreaves, J., Bonell, C., Armstrong, B., Thomas, J., Kirkwood, B.R. and Hayes, R. 2011. Alternatives to randomisation in the evaluation of public-health interventions: Statistical analysis and causal inference. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 65: 576-581.
5. Donovan, E., Wood, M., Frayjo, K., Black, R.A. and Surette, D.A. 2012. A randomized, controlled trial to test the efficacy of an online, parent-based intervention for reducing the risks associated with college-student alcohol use. Addictive Behaviors, 37: 25-35.
6. Egger, M. and Smith, G.D. 1997. Meta-analysis. Potentials and promise. BMJ, 315: 1371-1374.
7. Glasgow, R.E., Green, L.W., Klesges, L.M., Abrams, D.B., Fisher, E.B., Goldstein, M.G.,and Orleans, C.T. 2006. External validity: We need to do more. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 31: 105-108.
8. Glasgow, R.E., Lichtenstein, E. and Marcus, A.C. 2003. Why don't we see more translation of health promotion research to practice? Rethinking the efficacy-to-effectiveness transition. American Journal of Public Health, 93: 1261-1267.
9. Green, L.W. 2001. From research to 'best practices' in other settings and populations. The American Journal of Health Behavior, 25: 165-178.
10. Green, L.W. and Glasgow, R.E. 2006. Evaluating the relevance, generalization, and applicability of research: Issues in external validation and translation methodology. Evaluation and the Health Professions, 29: 126-153.
11. Higgins, J.P. and Thompson, S.G. 2002. Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Statistics in Medicine, 21: 1539-1558.
12. Howard, G.S., Maxwell, S.E. and Fleming, K.J. 2000. The proof of the pudding: An illustration of the relative strengths of null hypothesis, meta-analysis, and Bayesian analysis. Psychological Methods, 5: 315-332.
13. Kim, E.S. and Willson, V.L. 2010. Evaluation pretest effects in pre-post studies. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 70: 744-759.
14. Lana, R.E. (2009). Pretest sensitization. In R. Rosenthal & R.L. Rosonow (Eds.), Artifacts in behavioral research: Robert Rosenthal and Ralph L. Rosnow's classic books (pp. 93-109). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
15. Moore, L. and Moore, G.F. 2011. Public health evaluation: Which designs work, for whom and under what circumstances?. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 65: 596-597.
16. Pocock, S.J., Assmann, S.E., Enos, L.E. and Kasten, L.E. 2002. Subgroup analysis, covariate adjustment and baseline comparisons in clinical trial reporting: Current practice and problems. Statistics in Medicine, 21: 2917-2930.
17. Rubel, S.K., Miller, J.W., Stephens, R.L., Xu, Y., Scholl, L.E., Holden, E.W.,and Volk, R.J. 2011. Testing the effects of a decision aid for prostate cancer screening. Journal of Health Communication, 15: 307-321.
18. Senn, S. and Julious, S. 2009. Measurement in clinical trials: A neglected issue for statisticians?. Statistics in Medicine, 28: 3189-3209.
19. Shadish, W.R., Cook, T.D. and Campbell, D.T. 2002. Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference, Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
20. Solomon, R.L. 1949. An extension of control group design. Psychological Bulletin, 46: 137-150.
21. Spence, J.C., Burgess, J., Rodgers, W. and Murray, T. 2009. Effect of pretesting on intentions and behaviour: A pedometer and walking intervention. Psychology & Health, 24: 777-789.
22. Wang, R., Lagakos, S.W., Ware, J.H., Hunter, D.J. and Drazen, J.M. 2007. Statistics in medicine-reporting of subgroup analyses in clinical trials. New England Journal of Medicine, 357: 2189-2194.