Allegiance bias

Allegiance bias (or allegiance effect) in behavioral sciences is a bias resulted from the investigator's or researcher's allegiance to a specific school of thought.[1] [2] Researchers/investigators have been exposed to many types of branches of psychology or schools of thought. Naturally they adopt a school or branch that fits with their paradigm of thinking. More specifically, allegiance bias is when this leads therapists, researchers, etc. believing that their school of thought or treatment is superior to others.[3] Their superior belief to these certain schools of thought can bias their research in effective treatments trials or investigative situations leading to allegiance bias.  Reason being is that they may have devoted their thinking to certain treatments they have seen work in their past experiences. This can lead to errors in interpreting the results of their research. Their “pledge” to stay within their own paradigm of thinking may affect their ability to find more effective treatments to help the patient or situation they are investigating.[1]

This article is about researcher allegiance. For other uses, see Bias and Bias (disambiguation).
Part of a series on
Psychology
Basic psychology
Applied psychology
Concepts
Lists

History

“Therapeutic allegiance of the experimenter was first used by Luborsky Singer, and Luborsky" in a journal article published in 1975.[3] The basis of their study looked for comparisons among some psychotherapy practices. They found that patients fared better when combined treatments of therapies were used versus only one treatment applied. They found the strongest allegiance are those therapists who are the authors of new implemented practices or supervise others in a practice. They will tend to use their treatment more often.

Psychotherapy

Some reasons why this is occurs in psychotherapy is that there are many new therapies being implemented and researched. Supported research explains that those who develop "specific psychotherapy treatments show more interest for the evidence-based practice of their own therapies compared to others."[4]

Forensic psychology

Most often forensic experts indulge in having formed a biased opinion of the assessment in favor of the party retaining their services as opposed to having it objective by means of the evidence available. Some studies have been conducted evaluating biases in legal cases.  They observed that forensic psychologists may be hired by a particular party or attorney, because they have a preexisting attitude “in favor of capital punishment and would be more favorable to accept capital case referrals from particular adversarial parties.” That they may have a partial preexisting allegiance to certain legal cases that favor their opinions. These biases can disrupt justice in legal cases which can be dangerous to our society.  [5] The American Psychological Association knows the effects of biases and have prepared guidelines for these preexisting attitudes and biases to help forensic psychologists to be objective when choosing court cases.[6]

Analyses

Another area that allegiance bias is found is when authors/researchers are critiquing each other's work. Some studies make claims that a previous article confirmed bias and so on. It is important to analyze these authors, who are making these claims, on how they are coming to their conclusion. These authors may be also demonstrating allegiance bias by testing previous articles to their own work and overexerting the conclusion they have found. These authors are ironically using allegiance bias to verify their work as being correct.[7]

Critiques

[8]

Despite the fact that researchers find the outcomes of psychological evaluations to be influenced from allegiance from a specific school of thought, the role of allegiance in the research field should be evaluated cautiously. Several meta-analyses have shown contradictory results between experimenter's allegiance (EA) and assessment effect sizes in favor of the preferred conclusions.[4] These are meta-analysis that examines a combination of psychotherapy and non-psychotherapy treatments (e.g., medication) if it was directly compared with another type of psychotherapy or meta-analysis evaluating direct comparisons between different types of psychotherapy. Meta-analysis assessing non-verbal techniques, web-based treatments and non-specific or miscellaneous treatments (e.g., yoga, dietary advice, recreation, biofeedback, etc.) should also be excluded.[4]

Sensitivity

The analysis on direct comparisons did not address the quality of studies and neither did it have any significant association between allegiant and non-allegiant studies; whereas significant differences were observed in cases where treatment integrity was not evaluated.[9]

[10][11][12]

In legal cases, evaluator attitudes and other attributes may systematically influence from whom evaluators are willing to accept a referral. Filtering and selection effects in adversarial settings have been assumed to exist, but with few empirical tests of the hypothesis to date.[13][14] Current studies demonstrate that these experts have preexisting biases that may affect for whom they are willing to work in the adversarial system–thus, likely amplifying the effects of the system-induced biases when layered with preexisting expert biases.

Rating

[15]

Remedies

Objective methods
  • Creating a list - this would be the simplest method for a professional to hypothesize all/any possibilities that would seem reasonable, at the inception of an evaluation process.[16]
  • Surveillance[17][18]

Reporting policies

Systematic reviews and meta-analysis are essential to summarise evidence relating to efficacy and safety of healthcare interventions accurately and reliably. The clarity and transparency of these reports, however, are not optimal. Poor reporting of systematic reviews diminishes their value to clinicians, policy makers, and other users.[19]

QUOROM
Main article: QUOROM flow chart

Since the development of the QUOROM (quality of reporting of meta-analysis) statement—a reporting guideline published in 1999—there have been several conceptual, methodological, and practical advances regarding the conduct and reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analysis. Also, reviews of published systematic reviews have found that key information about these studies is often poorly reported.[20]

PRISMA
Main article: Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses

Realizing these issues, an international group that included experienced authors and methodologists developed PRISMA (preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis) as an evolution of the original QUOROM guideline for systematic reviews and meta-analysis of evaluations of health care interventions.[21][22]

The PRISMA statement consists of a 27-item checklist and a four-phase flow diagram. The checklist includes items deemed essential for transparent reporting of a systematic review. In this explanation and elaboration document, they have explained the meaning and rationale for each checklist item & have include an example of good reporting, while also where possible, references to relevant empirical studies and methodological literature.[23]

Conflict of interest

[24][25]

[26][27][28][29][7]

See also

References
  1. Wilson, G. Terence; Wilfley, Denise E.; Agras, W. Stewart; Bryson, Susan W. (2017-03-31). "Allegiance Bias and Therapist Effects: Results of a Randomized Controlled Trial of Binge Eating Disorder". Clinical Psychology. 18 (2): 119–125. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2850.2011.01243.x. ISSN 0969-5893. PMC 4118818. PMID 25089079.
  2. Dragioti, Elena; Dimoliatis, Ioannis; Evangelou, Evangelos (2015-05-30). "Disclosure of researcher allegiance in meta-analyses and randomised controlled trials of psychotherapy: a systematic appraisal". BMJ Open. 5 (6): e007206. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2014-007206. ISSN 2044-6055. PMC 4458582. PMID 26033943.
  3. Leykin, Yan; DeRubeis, Robert J. (2009). "Allegiance in Psychotherapy Outcome Research: Separating Association From Bias". Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice. 16 (1): 54–65. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2850.2009.01143.x. ISSN 1468-2850.
  4. Dragioti, Elena; Dimoliatis, Ioannis; Fountoulakis, Konstantinos N.; Evangelou, Evangelos (2015-09-15). "A systematic appraisal of allegiance effect in randomized controlled trials of psychotherapy". Annals of General Psychiatry. 14: 25. doi:10.1186/s12991-015-0063-1. ISSN 1744-859X. PMC 4570291. PMID 26379758.
  5. Gianni Pirelli; Patricia A. Zapf (2008-04-16). "An Investigation of Psychologists' Practices and Attitudes toward Participation in Capital Evaluations". Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice. 8 (1): 39–66. doi:10.1080/15228930801947294. ISSN 1522-8932. S2CID 144255691.
  6. "Identifying and managing potential bias in forensic evaluations". apadivisions.org. Retrieved 2019-11-21.
  7. Lieb, Klaus; von der Osten-Sacken, Jan; Stoffers-Winterling, Jutta; Reiss, Neele; Barth, Jürgen (2016-04-26). "Conflicts of interest and spin in reviews of psychological therapies: a systematic review". BMJ Open. 6 (4): e010606. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2015-010606. ISSN 2044-6055. PMC 4853969. PMID 27118287.
  8. Leykin, Yan; DeRubeis, Robert J. (2009-03-01). "Allegiance in Psychotherapy Outcome Research: Separating Association From Bias". Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice. 16 (1): 54–65. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2850.2009.01143.x. ISSN 1468-2850.
  9. Weisz, John R.; Jensen-Doss, Amanda; Hawley, Kristin M. (2006). "Evidence-based youth psychotherapies versus usual clinical care: A meta-analysis of direct comparisons". American Psychologist. 61 (7): 671–689. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.515.3764. doi:10.1037/0003-066x.61.7.671. PMID 17032068.
  10. Wampold, Bruce E.; Budge, Stephanie L.; Laska, Kevin M.; Del Re, A. C.; Baardseth, Timothy P.; Fluckiger, Christoph; Minami, Takuya; Kivlighan, D. Martin; Gunn, Wade (2011-12-01). "Evidence-based treatments for depression and anxiety versus treatment-as-usual: a meta-analysis of direct comparisons". Clinical Psychology Review. 31 (8): 1304–1312. doi:10.1016/j.cpr.2011.07.012. ISSN 1873-7811. PMID 21996291.
  11. Munder, Thomas; Gerger, Heike; Trelle, Sven; Barth, Jürgen (2011-11-01). "Testing the allegiance bias hypothesis: A meta-analysis". Psychotherapy Research. 21 (6): 670–684. doi:10.1080/10503307.2011.602752. ISSN 1050-3307. PMID 21797736. S2CID 205711756.
  12. Munder, Thomas; Gerger, Heike; Trelle, Sven; Barth, Jürgen (2011-11-01). "Testing the allegiance bias hypothesis: a meta-analysis". Psychotherapy Research. 21 (6): 670–684. doi:10.1080/10503307.2011.602752. ISSN 1468-4381. PMID 21797736. S2CID 205711756.
  13. Murrie, Daniel C.; Boccaccini, Marcus T.; Guarnera, Lucy A.; Rufino, Katrina A. (2013-10-01). "Are forensic experts biased by the side that retained them?". Psychological Science. 24 (10): 1889–1897. doi:10.1177/0956797613481812. ISSN 1467-9280. PMID 23969777. S2CID 46521726.
  14. Murrie, Daniel C.; Boccaccini, Marcus T.; Guarnera, Lucy A.; Rufino, Katrina A. (2013-08-22). "Are Forensic Experts Biased by the Side That Retained Them?". Psychological Science. 24 (10): 1889–1897. doi:10.1177/0956797613481812. PMID 23969777. S2CID 46521726.
  15. Gaffan, E. A.; Tsaousis, I.; Kemp-Wheeler, S. M. (1995-12-01). "Researcher allegiance and meta-analysis: the case of cognitive therapy for depression". Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 63 (6): 966–980. doi:10.1037/0022-006X.63.6.966. ISSN 0022-006X. PMID 8543719.
  16. "Identifying and managing potential bias in forensic evaluations". APA Div. 41: American Psychology-Law Society. Retrieved 2017-03-31.
  17. Robinson, L. A.; Berman, J. S.; Neimeyer, R. A. (1990-07-01). "Psychotherapy for the treatment of depression: a comprehensive review of controlled outcome research". Psychological Bulletin. 108 (1): 30–49. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.108.1.30. ISSN 0033-2909. PMID 2200072.
  18. Imel, Zac E.; Wampold, Bruce E.; Miller, Scott D.; Fleming, Reg R. (2008-12-01). "Distinctions without a difference: direct comparisons of psychotherapies for alcohol use disorders". Psychology of Addictive Behaviors. 22 (4): 533–543. doi:10.1037/a0013171. ISSN 0893-164X. PMID 19071978.
  19. Moher, David; Tetzlaff, Jennifer; Tricco, Andrea C.; Sampson, Margaret; Altman, Douglas G. (2007-03-27). "Epidemiology and reporting characteristics of systematic reviews". PLOS Medicine. 4 (3): e78. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0040078. ISSN 1549-1676. PMC 1831728. PMID 17388659.
  20. Moher, D.; Cook, D. J.; Eastwood, S.; Olkin, I.; Rennie, D.; Stroup, D. F. (1999-11-27). "Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: the QUOROM statement. Quality of Reporting of Meta-analyses". Lancet. 354 (9193): 1896–1900. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(99)04149-5. ISSN 0140-6736. PMID 10584742. S2CID 21826935.
  21. Wen, Jin; Ren, Yu; Wang, Li; Li, Youping; Liu, Ya; Zhou, Min; Liu, Ping; Ye, Lu; Li, Yi (2008-08-01). "The reporting quality of meta-analyses improves: a random sampling study". Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 61 (8): 770–775. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2007.10.008. ISSN 0895-4356. PMID 18411041.
  22. Wen, Jin; Ren, Yu; Wang, Li; Li, Youping; Liu, Ya; Zhou, Min; Liu, Ping; Ye, Lu; Li, Yi; Tian, Wei (2008). "The reporting quality of meta-analyses improves: a random sampling study". Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 61 (8): 770–775. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2007.10.008. PMID 18411041.
  23. Liberati, Alessandro; Altman, Douglas G; Tetzlaff, Jennifer; Mulrow, Cynthia; Gøtzsche, Peter C; Ioannidis, John P A; Clarke, Mike; Devereaux, P J; Kleijnen, Jos (2009-07-21). "The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration". The BMJ. 339: b2700. doi:10.1136/bmj.b2700. ISSN 0959-8138. PMC 2714672. PMID 19622552.
  24. Thompson, Dennis F. (2009-01-01). "The challenge of conflict of interest in medicine". Zeitschrift für Evidenz, Fortbildung und Qualität im Gesundheitswesen. 103 (3): 136–140. doi:10.1016/j.zefq.2009.02.021. ISSN 1865-9217. PMID 19554887. S2CID 7219269.
  25. Institute of Medicine (US) Committee on Conflict of Interest in Medical Research, Education, and Practice (2009-01-01). Lo, Bernard; Field, Marilyn J. (eds.). Conflict of Interest in Medical Research, Education, and Practice. The National Academies Collection: Reports funded by National Institutes of Health. Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US). ISBN 9780309131889. PMID 20662118.
  26. Maj, Mario (2008-08-01). "Non-financial conflicts of interests in psychiatric research and practice". The British Journal of Psychiatry. 193 (2): 91–92. doi:10.1192/bjp.bp.108.049361. ISSN 0007-1250. PMID 18669986.
  27. Maj, Mario (2008-08-01). "Non-financial conflicts of interests in psychiatric research and practice". The British Journal of Psychiatry. 193 (2): 91–92. doi:10.1192/bjp.bp.108.049361. ISSN 0007-1250. PMID 18669986.
  28. Roseman, Michelle; Milette, Katherine; Bero, Lisa A.; Coyne, James C.; Lexchin, Joel; Turner, Erick H.; Thombs, Brett D. (2011-03-09). "Reporting of conflicts of interest in meta-analyses of trials of pharmacological treatments" (PDF). JAMA. 305 (10): 1008–1017. doi:10.1001/jama.2011.257. hdl:11370/d4a95ee2-429f-45a4-a917-d794ee954797. ISSN 1538-3598. PMID 21386079. S2CID 11270323.
  29. Roseman, Michelle (2011-03-09). "Reporting of Conflicts of Interest in Meta-analyses of Trials of Pharmacological Treatments" (PDF). JAMA. 305 (10): 1008–17. doi:10.1001/jama.2011.257. hdl:11370/d4a95ee2-429f-45a4-a917-d794ee954797. ISSN 0098-7484. PMID 21386079. S2CID 11270323.
  •  This article incorporates text available under the CC BY 4.0 license.
  •  This article incorporates text available under the CC BY 4.0 license.
  •  This article incorporates text available under the CC BY 4.0 license.
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.