According to R.A. Fisher, randomization “relieves the experimenter from the anxiety of considering innumerable causes by which the data may be disturbed.” Since, in particular, it is said to control for known and unknown nuisance factors that may considerably challenge the validity of a result, it has become very popular. This contribution challenges the received view. First, looking for quantitative support, we study a number of straightforward, mathematically simple models. They all demonstrate that the optimism surrounding randomization is questionable: In small to medium-sized samples, random allocation of units to treatments typically yields a considerable imbalance between the groups, i.e., confounding due to randomization is the rule rather than the exception. In the second part of this contribution, the reasoning is extended to a number of traditional arguments in favour of randomization. This discussion is rather non-technical, and sometimes touches on the rather fundamental Frequentist/Bayesian debate. However, the result of this analysis turns out to be quite similar: While the contribution of randomization remains doubtful, comparability contributes much to a compelling conclusion. Summing up, classical experimentation based on sound background theory and the systematic construction of exchangeable groups seems to be advisable.
The nature of psychological measurement is still the subject of fierce controversy. A rather philosophical debate has been going on in this journal; therefore a closer look at physicists’ ideas on measurement may be helpful. In particular, we will try to clarify matters with the help of the crucial concepts of access (validity), precision (reliability), and invariance.
Knowledge regarding digital practices in the field of systemic therapy is poor. A few surveys have been conducted in non‐European countries investigating the provision of digitally based therapy, counselling, training, and supervision by systemic family and couple therapists (SCFTs). Thus, a survey aiming to investigate the use of information and communication technology (ICT) among European SCFTs was launched in 2017. A sample of 220 SCFTs was included in the survey. The majority were residents in Greece, France and Italy. Descriptive analysis compared SCFTs’ digital practices and concerns from the above three countries with those from the rest of Europe. Results showed that 81.4 per cent of European SCFTs used ICT for clinical purposes and 47.7 per cent in training and supervision. Main concerns among European SCFTs related to the quality of therapeutic relationship, ethical and legal issues, and a lack of national and transnational regulation.
Practitioner points
ICT use and e‐therapy increase access to mental health services and maintain therapeutic contact
Systemic individual therapy, supervision and training are workable online settings
Legislation regulating ICT use in therapy, supervision and training (e.g. General Data Protection Regulation) has to be respected
Training and continuous education in online practices enhance therapists’ and clients’ options, and ensure digital safeness and effective treatment
A straightforward proof of a result of R. P. Kertz (1986, J. Multivariate Anal. 19, 88 112) is given, concerning the complete comparison of the values to a statistician, observing sequentially a sequence X 1 , ..., X n of iid, [0, 1]-valued random variables, and the value to a prophet, observing that same sequence, and picking the largest observation to occur.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.