'Everything works': The need to address confirmation bias in evaluations of drug misuse prevention interventions for adolescents

Addiction

Volumn 110, Issue 10, 2015, Pages 1539-1540

  Gorman, Dennis M ^a  

^a TEXAS A AND M HEALTH SCIENCE CENTER   (United States)

Author keywords

Analytic flexibility; Comfirmation bias; Conflicts of interest; Drug prevention; Study protocols; Trial registration

Indexed keywords

ADOLESCENT; EVIDENCE BASED PRACTICE; HUMAN; METHODOLOGY; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; STATISTICAL BIAS; SUBSTANCE-RELATED DISORDERS;

ADOLESCENT; BIAS (EPIDEMIOLOGY); DATA INTERPRETATION, STATISTICAL; EVIDENCE-BASED PRACTICE; HUMANS; RESEARCH DESIGN; SUBSTANCE-RELATED DISORDERS;

EID: 84941123631     PISSN: 09652140     EISSN: 13600443     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/add.12954     Document Type: Editorial

References (19)

1. Martinson R. What works? Questions and answers about prison reform. Public Interest 1974; 35: 22-54.
2. Mihalic S. F., Elliott D. S. Evidence-based programs registry: blueprints for healthy development. Eval Program Plann 2015; 48: 124-31.
3. Gandhi A. G., Murphy-Graham E., Petrosino A., Chrismer S. S., Weiss C. H. The devil is in the details: examining the evidence for 'proven' school-based drug abuse prevention program. Eval Rev 2007; 31: 43-74.
4. Holder H. D. Prevention programs in the 21st century: what we do not discuss in public. Addiction 2010; 105: 578-81.
5. Gorman D. M., Conde E. The making of evidence-based practice: the case of Project ALERT. Child Youth Serv Rev 2010; 32: 214-22.
6. Gorman D. M. Is Project Towards No Drug Abuse (TND) an evidence-based drug and violence prevention program? A review and reappraisal of the evaluation studies. J Prim Prev 2014; 35: 217-32.
7. Fanelli D. 'Positive' results increase down the hierarchy of sciences. PLOS ONE 2010; 5: e10068.
8. Kerr N. L. HARKing: hypothesizing after the results are known. Pers Soc Psychol Rev 1998; 2: 196-217.
9. Ferguson C. J., Heene M. A vast graveyard of undead theories: publication bias and psychological science's aversion to the null. Perspect Psychol Sci 2012; 7: 555-61.
10. Ioannidis J. P. A., Greenland S., Hlatky M. A., Khoury M. J., Macleod M. R., Moher D. et al. Increasing value and reducing waste in research design, conduct, and analysis. Lancet 2014; 383: 166-75.
11. Gorman D. M., Conde E. Conflict of interest in the evaluation and dissemination of 'model' school-based drug and violence prevention programs. Eval Program Plann 2007; 30: 422-9.
12. Eisner M. No effect in independent prevention trials: can we reject the cynical view? J Exp Criminol 2009; 5: 163-83.
13. Graham K. Balancing type I and type II error: response to Gorman. Addiction 2008; 103: 1753-4.
14. Midford R., Cahill H., Foxcroft D. R., Ramsden R. Lester L. Rejoinder to Gorman's critique. Int J Drug Pol 9February 2015. pii: S0955-3959(15)00042-0. doi: 10.1016/j.drugpo.2015.01.021. [Epub ahead of print].
15. Gorman D. M. Analytic flexibility in the evaluation of the Drug Education in Victoria Schools (DEVS) programme. Int J Drug Pol 9January 2015. pii: S0955-3959(15)00004-3. doi: 10.1016/j.drugpo.2015.01.001. [Epub ahead of print].
16. Gorman D. M., Conde E., Huber J. C. Jr. The creation of evidence in 'evidenced-based' drug prevention: a critique of the Strengthening Families Program Plus Life Skills Training evaluation. Drug Alcohol Rev 2007; 26: 585-93.
17. Popper K. R. The problem of demarcation. In: Miller M., editor. Popper Selections. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press; 1985, pp. 118-30.
18. Miguel E., Casey K., Cohen J., Esterling K. M., Gerber A., Glennerster R. et al. Promoting transparency in social science research. Science 2014; 343: 30-13.
19. US Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. About NREPP. Available at: http://www.nrepp.samhsa.gov/AboutNREPP.aspx (accessed 27March 2015).