Should Providers of Treatment Be Regarded as a Random Factor? If it Ain't Broke, Don't "Fix" It: A Comment on Siemer and Joormann (2003)

  • Serlin R
  • Wampold B
  • Levin J
  • 32

    Readers

    Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
  • 48

    Citations

    Citations of this article.

Abstract

In their criticism of B. E. Wampold and R. C. Serlin's analysis of treatment effects in nested designs, M. Siemer and J. Joormann argued that providers of services should be considered a fixed factor because typically providers are neither randomly selected from a population of providers nor randomly assigned to treatments, and statistical power to detect treatment effects is greater in the fixed than in the mixed model. The authors of the present article argue that if providers are considered fixed, conclusions about the treatment must be conditioned on the specific providers in the study, and they show that in this case generalizing beyond these providers incurs inflated Type I error rates.

Get free article suggestions today

Mendeley saves you time finding and organizing research

Sign up here
Already have an account ?Sign in

Find this document

Get full text

Authors

Cite this document

Choose a citation style from the tabs below

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free