<html>
  <head>
    <meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
  </head>
  <body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
    <div class="moz-cite-prefix"><font face="Times New Roman">Tan
        important point but there are other kinds of controls, such as
        matched ones.  But more importantly is the size of the
        improvement.  This can be measured fundamentally different
        ways.  Traditionally, one would use regression and treatment or
        not as predictors and get an r.  Following test theory, one
        would design an outcome measure and collect and Rasch analyze
        the results for the two groups. The size of the change can be
        expressed in logits or the mean difference in logits divided by
        the SD logit</font><br>
      <pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">My Best,

Michael Lamport Commons, Ph.D.
Assistant Clinical Professor

Department of Psychiatry
Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center
Harvard Medical School
234 Huron Avenue
Cambridge, MA 02138-1328

Telephone   (617) 497-5270
Facsimile   (617) 491-5270
Cellular    (617) 320–0896
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Commons@tiac.net">Commons@tiac.net</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://dareassociation.org/">http://dareassociation.org/</a>


</pre>
      On 8/14/2012 10:31 PM, wjencke wrote:<br>
    </div>
    <blockquote
      cite="mid:A0DCD11E-D1E4-42A5-98B7-3B8D33FBA447@iinet.net.au"
      type="cite">
      <div>sorry only half message went through</div>
      <div><br>
      </div>
      <div>second half is</div>
      <div><br>
      </div>
      <div>that way you are comparing oranges with oranges - not oranges
        with lemons<br>
        <br>
        On 15/08/2012, at 12:28 PM, wjencke &lt;<a
          moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:wjencke@IINET.NET.AU">wjencke@IINET.NET.AU</a>&gt;
        wrote:<br>
        <br>
      </div>
      <blockquote type="cite">
        <div>
          <div>the problem is the placebos used by pp are inert - with a
            pill there is expectancy that it will work</div>
          <div><br>
          </div>
          <div>that was the plus of the study - a positive placebo</div>
          <div><br>
          </div>
          <div><br>
          </div>
          <div><br>
            On 15/08/2012, at 11:32 AM, Jeremy McCarthy &lt;<a
              moz-do-not-send="true"
              href="mailto:jeremymccarthy@HOTMAIL.COM">jeremymccarthy@HOTMAIL.COM</a>&gt;
            wrote:<br>
            <br>
          </div>
          <blockquote type="cite">
            <div>
              <div dir="ltr">
                <style><!--
.hmmessage P
{
margin:0px;
padding:0px
}
body.hmmessage
{
font-size: 10pt;
font-family:Tahoma
}
--></style>
                <div dir="ltr">I'm not a scientist, so take what I say
                  with a grain of salt, but it seems to me that Wayne
                  and Acacia are both correct.  A placebo control works
                  really well when you are trying to determine the
                  difference between an external intervention (like a
                  pill) and the body's ability to self-heal.  You
                  administer the physical intervention (e.g. a pill) to
                  one group, and a psychological intervention (a pill
                  with inert physical effects) to the other group.  But
                  when you are trying to measure the effect of a
                  psychological intervention you are forced to compare
                  one psychological intervention to another.  So now you
                  are comparing one type of self-healing to another, so
                  the distinctions will never be as clear (to Acacia's
                  point, it is messier than we would like it to be).  PP
                  is kind of like a placebo because it drives
                  self-healing and now the messy part is to determine
                  which interventions create a stronger "placebo effect"
                  than others.  This all depends on how you define a
                  "placebo," but I'm just not sure you can define
                  something as an inert placebo in a psychological
                  intervention, you can only compare different
                  conditions and look for different outcomes.  
                  <div><br>
                  </div>
                  <div><br>
                    <br>
                    <div><br>
                    </div>
                    <div>Jeremy McCarthy</div>
                    <div>twitter: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
                        href="http://twitter.com/jeremymcc"
                        target="_blank">@jeremymcc</a></div>
                    <div>blog: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
                        href="http://psychologyofwellbeing.com"
                        target="_blank">http://psychologyofwellbeing.com</a> </div>
                    <br>
                    <br>
                    <div>&gt; Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2012 16:42:28 -0400<br>
                      &gt; From: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
                        href="mailto:acaciaparkssheiner@GMAIL.COM">acaciaparkssheiner@GMAIL.COM</a><br>
                      &gt; Subject: Re: [FRIENDS-OF-PP] Fwd: Do Positive
                      Psychology Exercises Work? A Replication of
                      Seligman et al.<br>
                      &gt; To: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
                        href="mailto:FRIENDS-OF-PP@LISTS.APA.ORG">FRIENDS-OF-PP@LISTS.APA.ORG</a><br>
                      &gt; <br>
                      &gt; I wouldn't go that far. I think it's more
                      evidence that the transition<br>
                      &gt; between the lab and the real world is messier
                      than we would like. What<br>
                      &gt; works in the lab may not work in the real
                      world the first time we try<br>
                      &gt; it for myriad reasons, including:<br>
                      &gt; <br>
                      &gt; 1) It isn't that engaging so people don't do
                      it without an incentive<br>
                      &gt; (class credit, money, candy, social capital,
                      etc.)<br>
                      &gt; <br>
                      &gt; 2) People may do it incorrectly (for example,
                      in the iPhone dataset,<br>
                      &gt; we found goal setting was popular but not
                      that helpful to people,<br>
                      &gt; despite lots of literature that suggests that
                      it should be helpful; we<br>
                      &gt; speculated that this might be because in the
                      absence of oversight,<br>
                      &gt; people were choosing goals that were either
                      too easy to be inspiring<br>
                      &gt; or so difficult that they were discouraging).<br>
                      &gt; <br>
                      &gt; 3) People may change the activity in ways
                      that reduce its efficacy<br>
                      &gt; (practicing it not often enough, for example)<br>
                      &gt; <br>
                      &gt; The list goes on. Nobody takes an
                      intervention to the real world and<br>
                      &gt; has it translate perfectly. Dissemination is
                      an iterative process.<br>
                      &gt; <br>
                      &gt; <br>
                      &gt; On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 3:53 PM, wjencke &lt;<a
                        moz-do-not-send="true"
                        href="mailto:wjencke@iinet.net.au">wjencke@iinet.net.au</a>&gt;
                      wrote:<br>
                      &gt; &gt; its worth reading the paper that acacia
                      kindly provided. the attrition rate is important
                      but the broader issue is superiority of the
                      replication.<br>
                      &gt; &gt;<br>
                      &gt; &gt; reading this my takehome message is that
                      pp might be nothing more than a well thought
                      through placebo<br>
                      &gt; &gt;<br>
                      &gt; &gt; On 15/08/2012, at 4:50 AM, Acacia Parks
                      &lt;<a moz-do-not-send="true"
                        href="mailto:acaciaparkssheiner@GMAIL.COM">acaciaparkssheiner@GMAIL.COM</a>&gt;
                      wrote:<br>
                      &gt; &gt;<br>
                      &gt; &gt;&gt; In the particular dataset I am
                      referencing (the replication study that<br>
                      &gt; &gt;&gt; was part of my dissertation),
                      retention (i.e. who actually completed<br>
                      &gt; &gt;&gt; their surveys) for the control group
                      was consistent with the average<br>
                      &gt; &gt;&gt; across conditions (about 75% from
                      pre-post, with things getting worse<br>
                      &gt; &gt;&gt; as time goes on out to the 1-year
                      follow-up, where average retention<br>
                      &gt; &gt;&gt; was around 35%). Some PP activities
                      had higher retention, and some had<br>
                      &gt; &gt;&gt; lower, but the early memories
                      control was right in the middle.<br>
                      &gt; &gt;&gt;<br>
                      &gt; &gt;&gt; When it comes to actual compliance
                      (i.e. who reported actually DOING<br>
                      &gt; &gt;&gt; the activity), the control group was
                      definitely lower than the rest<br>
                      &gt; &gt;&gt; (57.1%; PP activities ranged from
                      62.5-89.1%). Perhaps people had read<br>
                      &gt; &gt;&gt; the news articles and seen that it
                      was a control, so they knew. Or<br>
                      &gt; &gt;&gt; perhaps people were just benefitting
                      less so they didn't use it.<br>
                      &gt; &gt;&gt;<br>
                      &gt; &gt;&gt; One thing I didn't mention before is
                      the pattern of data in the<br>
                      &gt; &gt;&gt; control group. Data in the control
                      condition bounced all over the<br>
                      &gt; &gt;&gt; place. They got better, then worse,
                      then better, then worse across the<br>
                      &gt; &gt;&gt; time points. My in-person datasets
                      look pretty calm by comparison -<br>
                      &gt; &gt;&gt; the control group just stays the
                      same. This control group was much<br>
                      &gt; &gt;&gt; noisier than that. Way more
                      variation among controls than in any other<br>
                      &gt; &gt;&gt; condition. And not less data,
                      interestingly. They did their<br>
                      &gt; &gt;&gt; questionnaires as well as everyone
                      else.<br>
                      &gt; &gt;&gt;<br>
                      &gt; &gt;&gt;<br>
                      &gt; &gt;&gt; On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 2:36 PM, Tim
                      LeBon &lt;<a moz-do-not-send="true"
                        href="mailto:timlebon@gmail.com">timlebon@gmail.com</a>&gt;
                      wrote:<br>
                      &gt; &gt;&gt;&gt; Acacia<br>
                      &gt; &gt;&gt;&gt; Was there a difference in
                      drop-out depending on the intervention?<br>
                      &gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;<br>
                      &gt; &gt;&gt;&gt; Kind regards<br>
                      &gt; &gt;&gt;&gt; Tim<br>
                      &gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;<br>
                      &gt; &gt;&gt;&gt; On 14 August 2012 14:58, Acacia
                      Parks &lt;<a moz-do-not-send="true"
                        href="mailto:acaciaparkssheiner@gmail.com">acaciaparkssheiner@gmail.com</a>&gt;
                      wrote:<br>
                      &gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;<br>
                      &gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; These data are consistent
                      with my own attempts to replicate Seligman,<br>
                      &gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; Steen, Park &amp; Peterson
                      (2005). I did what was, as far as I can tell,<br>
                      &gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; an exact replication of the
                      study and got no significant findings on<br>
                      &gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; any of several measures
                      (including the two measures used in the<br>
                      &gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; original study). It's not
                      that the exercises don't work as expected -<br>
                      &gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; they do. It's that the
                      control groups "work," too. I found this for<br>
                      &gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; both the "early memories"
                      and the "take the via by itself" control<br>
                      &gt; <br>
                      &gt; <br>
                      &gt; <br>
                      &gt; -- <br>
                      &gt; <br>
                      &gt; =================<br>
                      &gt; Acacia Parks, Ph.D.<br>
                      &gt; Assistant Professor of Psychology<br>
                      &gt; Hiram College<br>
                      &gt; P.O. Box 67<br>
                      &gt; Hiram, OH 44234<br>
                      &gt; <br>
                      &gt; Associate Editor<br>
                      &gt; Journal of Positive Psychology<br>
                      &gt; email: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
                        href="mailto:parksac@hiram.edu">parksac@hiram.edu</a><br>
                      &gt; <br>
                      &gt; Check out my blog at Psychology Today:<br>
                      &gt; <a moz-do-not-send="true"
                        href="http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-science-self-help">http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-science-self-help</a><br>
                      &gt; <br>
                      &gt;
                      ---------------------------------------------------------------------<br>
                      &gt; <br>
                      &gt; The Friends of Positive Psychology listserv
                      is intended for the discussion of positive
                      psychology in research and practice. Please be
                      respectful of fellow list members by limiting your
                      posting to subjects that are relevant to a wide
                      audience. Personal responses should be sent
                      directly to the poster to whom you are replying.<br>
                      &gt; <br>
                      &gt; To post to the list, send your email to <a
                        moz-do-not-send="true"
                        href="mailto:FRIENDS-OF-PP@lists.apa.org">FRIENDS-OF-PP@lists.apa.org</a>.
                      To leave the list, send an email to <a
                        moz-do-not-send="true"
                        href="mailto:LISTSERV@lists.apa.org">LISTSERV@lists.apa.org</a>
                      with the words SIGNOFF FRIENDS-OF-PP in the body
                      of the message (leave the subject line blank). To
                      reach the listserv moderator, email <a
                        moz-do-not-send="true"
                        href="mailto:FRIENDS-OF-PP-request@lists.apa.org">FRIENDS-OF-PP-request@lists.apa.org</a>.<br>
                    </div>
                  </div>
                </div>
              </div>
              Click on this link to unsubscribe from this list <a
                moz-do-not-send="true"
title="mailto:FRIENDS-OF-PP-unsubscribe-request@lists.apa.org?subject=unsubscribe"
href="mailto:FRIENDS-OF-PP-unsubscribe-request@lists.apa.org?subject=unsubscribe">UNSUBSCRIBE</a>
              <o:p></o:p>
              <p><font face="Times New Roman" size="3"><span
                    style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt">An email will automatically
                    open with "Unsubscribe" in the subject area. Just
                    Send the message, as is, to unsubscribe from this
                    list.<o:p>.
                    </o:p></span></font></p>
            </div>
          </blockquote>
          Click on this link to unsubscribe from this list <a
            moz-do-not-send="true"
title="mailto:FRIENDS-OF-PP-unsubscribe-request@lists.apa.org?subject=unsubscribe"
href="mailto:FRIENDS-OF-PP-unsubscribe-request@lists.apa.org?subject=unsubscribe">UNSUBSCRIBE</a>
          <o:p></o:p>
          <p><font face="Times New Roman" size="3"><span
                style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt">An email will automatically open
                with "Unsubscribe" in the subject area. Just Send the
                message, as is, to unsubscribe from this list.<o:p>.
                </o:p></span></font></p>
        </div>
      </blockquote>
      Click on this link to unsubscribe from this list <a
        moz-do-not-send="true"
title="mailto:FRIENDS-OF-PP-unsubscribe-request@lists.apa.org?subject=unsubscribe"
href="mailto:FRIENDS-OF-PP-unsubscribe-request@lists.apa.org?subject=unsubscribe">UNSUBSCRIBE</a>
      <o:p></o:p>
      <p><font face="Times New Roman" size="3"><span style="FONT-SIZE:
            12pt">An email will automatically open with "Unsubscribe" in
            the subject area. Just Send the message, as is, to
            unsubscribe from this list.<o:p>.
            </o:p></span></font></p>
    </blockquote>
    <br>
  </body>
</html>