SAGE Journals Online
Advertisement
Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.

 

Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Advertisement

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Clinical Trials
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Supplementary Material
Right arrow A correction has been published
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Web of Science (1)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Collins, L. M
Right arrow Articles by Strecher, V.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Collins, L. M
Right arrow Articles by Strecher, V.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Comparison of a phased experimental approach and a single randomized clinical trial for developing multicomponent behavioral interventions

Linda M Collins

The Methodology Center and Department of Human Development and Family Studies, Penn State, lmcollins{at}psu.edu

Bibhas Chakraborty

Department of Statistics, University of Michigan

Susan A Murphy

Department of Statistics and Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan

Victor Strecher

Department of Health Behavior and Health Education, University of Michigan

Background Many interventions in today's health sciences are multicomponent, and often one or more of the components are behavioral. Two approaches to building behavioral interventions empirically can be identified. The more typically used approach, labeled here the classical approach, consists of constructing a likely best intervention a priori, and then evaluating the intervention in a standard randomized controlled trial (RCT). By contrast, the emergent phased experimental approach involves programmatic phases of empirical research and discovery aimed at identifying individual intervention component effects and the best combination of components and levels.

Purpose The purpose of this article is to provide a head-to-head comparison between the classical and phased experimental approaches and thereby highlight the relative advantages and disadvantages of these approaches when they are used to select program components and levels so as to arrive at the most potent intervention.

Methods A computer simulation was performed in which the classical and phased experimental approaches to intervention development were applied to the same randomly generated data.

Results The phased experimental approach resulted in better mean intervention outcomes when the intervention effect size was medium or large, whereas the classical approach resulted in better mean intervention outcomes when the effect size was small. The phased experimental approach led to identification of the correct set of intervention components and levels at a higher rate than the classical approach across all conditions.

Limitations Some potentially important factors were not varied in the simulation, for example the underlying structural model and the number of intervention components.

Conclusions The phased experimental approach merits serious consideration, because it has the potential to enable intervention scientists to develop more efficacious behavioral interventions. Clinical Trials 2009; 6: 5—15. http://ctj.sagepub.com

Clinical Trials, Vol. 6, No. 1, 5-15 (2009)
DOI: 10.1177/1740774508100973


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?




Advertisement