Analyzing Basic Applied Research

from the editors

Confusion abounds about what qualifies as “evidence” of effective interventions. The president of the American Psychology Associa- tion [APA] notes that “much of the research that guides evidence-based practice is too inacces- sible, overwhelming, and removed from practice” (Goodheart, 2010, p. 9). Yet lists of evidence-based treatments are being used to control funding in treatment, human services, and education. Stated

simply, such policies are based on shaky science. Certainly there is no short- age of evidence that some methods are destructive, like withholding treatment or placing traumatized kids in toxic environments. But a wide variety of therapeu- tic interventions can have a positive impact if con- ducted within a trusting alliance.

There are two very differ- ent views of what evidence is most important. Re- search in the traditional medical model compares a proposed treatment with alternates or a placebo. If a prescribed number of pub- lished studies give a statis- tical edge, the treatment is

anointed as “evidence-based.” This is followed by endorsements from the National Institute of Health, the Department of Education, or other authoritative bodies.

Providing lists of curative treatments may work for medicine, but this is not how to find what works in complex therapeutic relationships. Mental health research has shown that the process of enshrining

Practice-Based Evidence: Back to the Future Larry K. Brendtro, Martin L. Mitchell, & James Doncaster

Researchers are shifting from the medical model of studying treatments, to a practice- based model focusing on the nature and needs of a person in a therapeutic relationship. As seen from the articles in this special issue, this has been a central tenet of Re-ED since founded by Nicholas Hobbs fifty years ago.

James Doncaster, guest editor

winter 2011 volume 19, number 4 | 5

specific treatment models as evidence-based is based on flawed science (Chan, Hróbjartsson, Haahr, Gøtzsche, & Altman, 2004). Dennis Gorman (2008) of Texas A & M University documents simi- lar problems with school-based substance abuse and violence prevention research which he calls scientific nonsense.

Julia Littell (2010) of the Campbell Coalition documents dozens of ways that sloppy science is being used to elevate specific treatments to evi- dence based status. Here are just a few of these research flaws:

Allegiance Effect: Studies produced by advocates of a particular method are positively biased.

File Cabinet Effect: Studies showing failure or no effects are tucked away and not submitted for publication.

Pollyanna Publishing Effect: Professional journals are much more likely to publish studies that show positive effects and reject those that do not.

Replication by Repetition Effect: Reviewers rely heavily on recycling findings cited by others, confusing rumor and repetition with replication.

Silence the Messenger Effect: Those who raise questions about the scientific base of studies are met with hostility and ad hominem attacks.

When researchers account for such biases, a clear pattern emerges. Widely touted evidence-based treat- ments turn out to be no better or no worse than other ap- proaches. Solid science speaks—success does not lie in the specific method but in common factors, the most important being the helping relationship.

Re-ED uses human relationships to change the world one child at a time.

Our field is in ferment as the focus of research is shifting. Instead of the study of treatments, the child now takes center stage. The practice-based model focuses on the nature and needs of an indi- vidual in an ecology (Brendtro & Mitchell, 2010). Effective interventions use research and practice

expertise to target client characteristics including problems, strengths, culture, and motivation (APA, 2006). Research and evaluation measure progress and provide feedback on the quality of the therapeutic alliance (Duncan, Miller, Wampold, & Hubble, 2010).

Instead of the study of treatments, the child now

takes center stage.

Re-ED is rooted in practice-based evidence. It taps a rich tradition of research, provides tools for di- rect work with youth, and tailors interventions to the individual child in an ecosystem (Cantrell & Cantrell, 2007; Freado, 2010). Fifty years after they were developed by Nicholas Hobbs and colleagues, the Re-ED principles offer a still-current map for meeting modern challenges. Re-ED does not im- pose a narrowly prescribed regimen of treatment, but uses human relationships to change the world one child at a time.

Larry K. Brendtro, PhD, is Dean of the Starr In- stitute for Training and co-editor of this journal with Martin L. Mitchell, EdD, President and CEO of Starr Commonwealth, Albion, Michigan. They can be contacted via email at [email protected]

James Doncaster, MA, is the senior director of orga- nizational development at Pressley Ridge in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and is guest editor of this special issue on the fiftieth anniversary of the founding of Re-ED. He may be contacted at [email protected]

6 | reclaiming children and youth www.reclaimingjournal.com

References

APA Presidential Task Force on Evidence-Based Practice. (2006). Evidence-based practice in psychology. Ameri- can Psychologist, 61(4), 271-285.

Brendtro, L., & Mitchell, M. (2010). Weighing the evidence: From chaos to consilience. Reclaiming Children and Youth, 19(2), 3-9.

Cantrell, R., & Cantrell, M. (2007). Helping troubled children and youth. Memphis, TN: American Re-Education As- sociation.

Chan, A., Hróbjartsson, A., Haahr, M., Gøtzsche, P., & Alt- man, D. (2004). Empirical evidence for selective report- ing of outcomes in randomized trials: Comparison of protocols to published articles. JAMA, 291, 2457-2465.

Duncan, B., Miller, S., Wampold, B., & Hubble, M, (Eds.). (2010). The heart and soul of change, second edition: Deliv- ering what works in therapy. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Freado, M. (2010). Measuring the impact of Re-ED. Reclaim- ing Children and Youth, 19(2), 28-31.

Goodheart, C. (2010). The education you need to know. Monitor on Psychology, 41(7), 9.

Gorman, D. (2008), Science, pseudoscience, and the need for practical knowledge. Addiction, 103, 1752–1753.

Littell, J. (2010). Evidence-based practice: Evidence or ortho- doxy. In B. Duncan, S. Miller, B. Wampold, & M. Hubble (Eds.), The heart and soul of change, second edition: Deliv- ering what works in therapy. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

PrinciPles oF re-ed Trust between a child and adult is essential, the foundation on which all other principles rest.

Life is to be lived now, not in the past, and lived in the future only as a present challenge.

Competence makes a difference, and children should be good at something, especially at school.

Time is an ally, working on the side of growth in a period of development.

Self-control can be taught and children and adolescents helped to manage their behavior.

Intelligence can be taught to cope with challenges of family, school and community.

Feelings should be nurtured, controlled when necessary, explored with trusted others.

The group is very important to young people, and it can be a major source of instruction in growing up.

Ceremony and ritual give order, stability, and confidence to troubled children and adolescence.

The body is the armature of the self, around which the psychological self is constructed.

Communities are important so youth can participate and learn to serve.

A child should know some joy in each day.

Hobbs, N. (1982). The troubled and troubling child. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

winter 2011 volume 19, number 4 | 7

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.