Reporting practices of dropouts in psychological research using a wait‐list control: current state and suggestions for improvement

Abstract

Reporting practices regarding dropouts in wait-list control studies hold great importance for the ability to replicate, generalize, and draw conclusions from research. This concern is applicable to all psychological research utilizing wait-list controls, regardless of purpose of research (e.g., treatment outcome). The current study assessed the present state of reporting practices in this type of experimental design and discussed the limitations and implications of the insufficient reporting found. 171 articles from psychology journals utilizing wait-list control design were surveyed regarding the reporting of the number of dropouts from the wait-list control and experimental conditions, characteristics and assessment scores of the dropouts, and total dropouts. Variables that are crucial to interpreting research findings are not consistently reported. Additionally, journal impact factor and year of publication were positively correlated with the adequacy of reporting. Consistencies with previous findings were noted, and suggestions for remedying the reporting inadequacies were discussed.

Group cognitive analytic therapy for female survivors of childhood sexual abuse

“…This study aimed to evaluate the outcomes of GCAT in routine clinical practice for female CSA survivors, through investigating differences between outcomes during treatment versus wait time. This method supports inferences that any differences found would be attributable to introduction of treatment (Cisler, Barnes, Farnsworth, & Sifers, ). This study also employed benchmarking (Lueger & Barkham, ) to contextualize the effect size of GCAT against other group psychotherapy outcome studies for female CSA survivors.…”

Prognostic Value of Affective Symptoms in First-Admission Psychotic Patients

“…Crow [ 2 ] and van Os [ 3 ] suggested the continuum hypothesis in which different diagnostic groups share dimensional factors, which could refer to similar neurobiological mechanisms, regardless of the type of psychosis. These dimensions in psychosis are not diagnosis-specific and seem to be reasonably replicable and stable in a variety of settings, diagnostic groups, and patient samples [ 4 ]. Early work was done on schizophrenia, finding a three-factor solution, with positive, negative, and disorganized dimensions [ 5 ].…”

“…More recently, samples studied have included the full spectrum of psychosis, and five-factor solutions have again been found, including manic and depressive dimensions [ 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 ]. In parallel, factor structure analyses have also focused on first psychotic episode samples [ 4 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 ] finding a five-factor solution, with positive, negative, manic, depressive, and disorganization dimensions.…”

DSM-V and the future diagnosis of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder

“…This is accomplished by specifying three or more ordered values based on clinically relevant information such as symptom counts, duration, or severity; certainty of diagnosis; and degree of impairment. In other workgroup reports, examples were offered for disorders of adulthood, including substance dependence [7], depression [8•], psychosis [9], anxiety [10], personality [11], and developmental psychopathology disorders [12•]. …”