ERIC Identifier: ED470604
Publication Date: 2002-12-00
Author: Walz, Garry R. - Jeanne C. Bleuer
Source: ERIC Clearinghouse on Counseling and Student Services
Greensboro NC.
Scientifically Based Research: What Does It Mean for Counselors?
ERIC Digest.
THIS DIGEST WAS CREATED BY ERIC, THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION CENTER. FOR MORE INFORMATION ABOUT ERIC, CONTACT ACCESS ERIC 1-800-LET-ERIC
INTRODUCTION
A core component of many new educational programs
funded under Bush administration's No Child Be Left Behind Act of
2001 is that they be based on scientifically based research. Further
emphasizing the important role that this type of research will play
in future U.S. Department of Education priorities has been the
establishment of the What Works Clearinghouse. Under the leadership
of Dr. Grover Whitehurst, this new clearinghouse will "...establish
standards for research and then determine...which studies meet those
standards" (Taub, 2002).
Like others in the educational community,
counselors and counseling researchers welcome the opportunity to
empirically test the validity of their practices and then, just as
important, demonstrate that what they do makes a positive difference
in students' lives. But they also have many concerns about the
practical feasibility of implementing scientifically based studies.
The purpose of this Digest is to provide an overview of the
characteristics of scientifically based research, compare it to
other types of research, and address some of the challenges and
issues that are particularly relevant to conducting scientifically
based studies of counseling interventions. To accomplish this, the
authors have included selected portions of the ERIC/CASS
publication, Research in Counseling & Therapy (Loesch & Vacc,
1997).
WHAT IS SCIENTIFICALLY BASED RESEARCH?
In a New York
Times article (November 10, 2002), James Taub pointed out
that "Journalists using the most exacting method available to social
science - that is, counting - have determined that the
phrase 'scientifically based research' occurs more than 100 times in
the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001." Other terms that are being
used more frequently now by educators and policy makers include
empirical evidence, empirical research, evidence based education and
randomized control trials (or RCTs). Whatever term is used, the
intent is to refer to experimental research studies that employ two
fundamental procedures - the use of control groups and the random
assignment of subjects to the different treatment groups. Typically,
experimental research is undertaken when the research question
involves a question of causality, i.e. whether changes in one
variable cause changes in another variable (Hadley & Mitchell,
1995). It is precisely this type of research, which will provide
evidence of what works (or what works better). CHARACTERISTICS OF
EXPERIMENTAL RESEARCH METHODS
Isaac and Michael (1981) identified
the purpose of experimental research as investigating "possible
cause-and-effect relationships by exposing one or more experimental
groups to one or more treatment conditions and comparing the results
to one or more control groups not receiving the treatment" (p.52).
They also identified seven characteristics of experimental research
implied in their definition: (a) management of the predictor and
criterion variables along with the conditions in which the
investigation is conducted; (b) use of a control group; (c)
attempting to control variance among the predictor and criterion
variables: (d) internal validity; (e) external validity; (f) ability
to manage multiple predictor, criterion, and extraneous variables;
and (g) exercise of control which makes experimental research
powerful (but also somewhat artificial) when applied to human
subjects. PREDICTOR AND CRITERION VARIABLES
There are two
primary types of variables in experimental research (Hadley &
Mitchell, 1995). The independent (aka treatment) variable is
manipulated, managed, or administered by the researcher. The result
of the manipulation is the measured or observed change in the
dependent variable. While the terms independent and dependent
variables have been used traditionally, the terms predictor and
criterion variables are better descriptors, particularly in the
context of experimental research. Predictor variables must be
carefully chosen or designed to maximize differences due to their
effects. Reliable and valid criterion variables must be selected or
designed to accurately measure change caused by the predictor
variables (Pickering, 1997). CONTROLLING
VARIANCE
Kerlinger (1973) offered an often-cited mnemonic to
define what is meant by variance control in experimental research.
MAXMINCON refers to MAXimizing the variance associated with the
relationship between the predictor and criterion variables,
MINimizing the error variance associated with measurement of the
criterion variables, and CONtrolling extraneous variance
attributable to other variables not included in the investigation.
According to Kerlinger, maximizing the variance related to the
interaction of the predictor and criterion variables requires
designing the levels of the predictor variables to be as different
from each other as possible. Minimizing the error variance is
accomplished by controlling the conditions in which the
investigation is conducted and choosing reliable measures of the
criterion variables. Controlling extraneous variance may involve any
of a variety of procedures, such as selecting a group of subjects
who are homogeneous on the variable, randomly selecting and
assigning subjects to groups, or perhaps adding the variable to the
investigation as another predictor variable. INTERNAL
VALIDITY
Internal validity refers to the level of confidence that
the predictor variable(s), rather than an extraneous variable,
produced the change found in the criterion variable(s). Hadley and
Mitchell (1995), Heppner, Kivlighan, and Wampold (1992), and Isaac
and Michael (1981) listed a variety of threats to internal validity
including group composition, experimental mortality, history,
maturation, practice effects, placebo effects, the Hawthorne effect,
the John Henry effect, experimenter bias, demand characteristics,
rater and observer effects, instrumentation, and statistical
regression. For example, when subjects are selected because of group
membership rather than being randomly selected, when subjects know
they are part of an experiment and merely respond to
receiving "special" treatment, or when the measuring instruments are
not reliable and valid, it is doubtful whether the treatment
variable caused the change in the criterion variable or whether it
was caused by some other extraneous factor(s) (Pickering,
1997). EXTERNAL VALIDITY
External validity is the degree to
which the results can be generalized to other populations. Hadley
and Mitchell (1995), Heppner, et al. (1992), and Isaac and
Michael (1981) described a variety of threats to external validity
including initial population-sample differences, mortality,
artificial research arrangements, pretest influence, and
multiple-treatment influences. For example, generalization to other
populations probably will be limited if the sample chosen is not
actually representative of the intended population, if subjects who
leave the investigation differ in some way from those who remain, if
subjects studied in laboratory settings perform differently than
they do in naturally occurring situations, if pretesting sensitizes
subjects to the treatment, or if multiple treatments are
administered to each subject. Managing threats to external validity
involves attempting to insure that both the subjects and the context
in which the investigation is conducted are appropriately
representative. RIGOR VERSUS RELEVANCE
Experimental research
almost always results in procedural compromise because control of
one type of variance may cause problems in attempting to control
another type of variance. Gelso (1979) labeled this "the bubble
hypothesis," referring to the difficulty which arises when someone
attempts to place a decal on a window and a bubble appears. When the
bubble is depressed in one area, it arises somewhere else. Gelso
also discussed how experimental rigor is related to internal
validity. Threats to internal validity are most easily managed in
controlled laboratory conditions, but human behavior rarely occurs
in tightly controlled laboratory situations and thus generalization
is limited. ISSUES IN DESIGNING AND IMPLEMENTING RESEARCH ON
COUNSELING
Experimental methods are often touted as the sine qua
non of research in counseling. However, they are not always the most
appropriate to answer questions. Heppner, et al. (1992) stated that
just as there is no uniform method of counseling, there is no
uniform method for conducting research. They offered five guidelines
to determine whether experimental methods should be used: (a) does
the professional literature support the use of experimental methods
or is a less rigorous approach more appropriate? (b) does the
literature include a variety of research methods or have one or two
methods dominated? (c) are sufficient resources available to support
the type of research method desired? (d) can rigor and relevance be
balanced to answer the research question? and (e) can responses to
the previous four guidelines be balanced with each other? Whenever
experimental methods are preferred or recommended to answer the
research question, the issues presented should be considered
carefully in designing the investigation. CONCLUSION
In
reviewing the characteristics of experimental research presented
above, it is apparent that some aspects of counseling are not
readily amenable to the application of scientific research methods.
This is not to say that randomized control trials cannot or should
not be undertaken when feasible. However, due to the policies of
some organizations that preclude use of no treatment control groups
and/or parental groups opposed to the involvement of their children
in research, these studies will be limited. Given the many potential
threats to validity, consumers of the results will need to carefully
evaluate the quality of the evidence as well as its relevance to
other counseling situations. Of particular interest to counselors is
the comparison of the effectiveness of different counseling
approaches in obtaining desired outcomes. Thus, an alternative to
the treatment-no treatment design is a Treatment A vs. Treatment B
design. However, even this design can produce flawed results due to
differences in the implementation of treatments by individual
counselors. Thus, in assessing the usefulness of results obtained
from experimental studies, one must always consider which is
better - to base actions on poor experimental research (i.e.,
research which has not fully met the rigors of controlling all of
the relevant variables) or to base actions on good qualitative
research (i.e., research that applies intensive and extensive
analysis from a number of perspectives and sources). At the
present time, it appears that those who teach and practice
counseling will have to rely heavily upon a careful evaluation of
the results of all types of research, well conducted meta-analyses
of counseling research (e.g., Sexton, et.al., 1987), and best human
judgments. In fact, in a speech delivered at a seminar where leading
experts in the fields of education and science discussed the meaning
of scientifically based research hosted by the Assistant Secretary
for Elementary and Secondary Education, Feuer (2002) stated
that, "...what scientists themselves often acknowledge is that there
is a dimension of human judgment that can be missed with an
overzealous focus on the rigor of scientific
method."
REFERENCES
Campbell, D. C., & Stanley, J. C. (1966).
Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research. Chicago,
IL: Rand-McNally. Feuer, M. (2002). The logic and the basic
principles of scientific based research. Paper presented at the
Scientifically Based Research - U.S. Department of Education
seminar, February 6,
2002. (www.ed.gov/offices/OESE/esea/research/feuer-towne.html)
Gelso, C. J. (1979). Research in counseling: Methodological and
professional issues. The Counseling Psychologist, 8 (3),
7-35.
Hadley, R. G., & Mitchell, L. K. (1995). Counseling research
and program evaluation. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Heppner,
P. P., Kivlighan, D. M., Jr., & Wampold, B. E. (1992). Research
design in counseling. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Huitema, B.
E. (1980). The analysis of covariance and alternatives. New York,
NY: Wiley.
Isaac, S., & Michael, W. B. (1981). Handbook in
research and evaluation (2nd ed.). San Diego, CA:
EdITS.
Kerlinger, F. N. (1973). Foundations of behavioral
research (2nd ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Loesch, L.
C., & Vacc, N. A. (Eds.) (1997). Research in counseling & therapy.
Greensboro, NC: ERIC Counseling and Student Services
Clearinghouse.
Sexton, T. L., Whiston, S. C., Bleuer, J. C., &
Walz, G. R. (1997). Integrating outcome research into counseling
practice and training. Alexandria, VA: American Counseling
Association. Taub, J. (2002). Does it work? The New York Times,
November 10, 2002.
-----
Garry R. Walz, Ph.D., and Jeanne C.
Bleuer, Ph.D., are Co-Directors of the ERIC Clearinghouse on
Counseling and Student Services at the University of North Carolina
at Greensboro.
ERIC Digests are in the public domain and may be
freely reproduced and disseminated. This publication was funded by
the U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and
Improvement, Contract No. ED-99-CO-0014. Opinions expressed in this
report do not necessarily reflect the position of the U.S.
Department of Education, OERI, or ERIC/CASS.
Title: Scientifically Based Research: What Does It Mean for Counselors?
ERIC Digest.
Document Type: Information Analyses---ERIC Information Analysis Products (IAPs) (071); Information Analyses---ERIC Digests (Selected) in Full Text (073);
Target Audience: Counselors, Practitioners
Available From: ERIC Counseling and Student Services Clearinghouse, University of
North Carolina at Greensboro, 201 Ferguson Building, P.O. Box 26171,
Greensboro, NC 27402-6171. Tel: 336-334-4114; Tel:
800-414-9769 (Toll Free); Fax: 336-334-4116; e-mail:
[email protected]; Web site: http://ericcass.uncg.edu.
Descriptors: Accountability, Counseling, Counseling Effectiveness, School
Counselors, Scientific Methodology, Scientific Research
Identifiers: ERIC Digests, No Child Left Behind Act 2001
###
[Return to ERIC Digest Search Page]