Trial reportBehavior therapy2025
Beyond Jacobson and Truax: Estimation of Clinical Significance Trajectories in the Coping Power Intervention Using Measurement Error-Corrected Multilevel Modeling.
Trial report in Behavior therapy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Project Harmony 2.0: protocol for an updated and expanded individual patient data meta-analysis and virtual clinical trial of treatments for comorbid PTSD and substance use disorders.European journal of psychotraumatology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Coping Power (CP) is a preventive intervention that focuses on reducing child externalizing problems. Although it is typically delivered in a group format (GCP), individually delivered CP (ICP) has produced greater mean reductions in externalizing problems. However, standard analysis of randomized trials loses individual-level information regarding which youth improve, fail to improve, or get worse, whereas clinically significant change (CSC) metrics capture information on individual change. The present study is a secondary analysis of an ICP/GCP trial (N = 360) that examines differences in CSC-based individual-level inferences on externalizing. A novel method for assessing CSC under measurement error-corrected multilevel modeling was used, overcoming three limitations of traditional CSC methods: (a) restriction to two time points, (b) use of total scores, and (c) assumption of constant reliability across time and participants. Because of concerns about Type II errors with all CSC methods, an individual-level effect size metric for CSC was also developed. Based on individualized Cohen's d estimates, individual-level improvements in externalizing from 4th through 11th grades of d ≥ 0.5 were significantly greater in ICP (73%) versus GCP (45%). Further, GCP saw significantly higher percentages of youth with worsening of externalizing, underscoring concerns about diminished effects for GCP. Half of the sample had improvement that was not statistically significant but exceeded d ≥ 0.5, highlighting the susceptibility to Type II errors of CSC's results based on statistical significance. An examination of ICP/GCP differences under advanced CSC analysis gives more nuanced information than conventional randomized controlled trial analysis and greater precision in estimating individual-level outcomes than standard CSC methodologies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.