Get Allegiance Bias essential facts below. View Videos or join the Allegiance Bias discussion. Add Allegiance Bias to your Like2do.com topic list for future reference or share this resource on social media.
Allegiance bias (or allegiance effect) in behavioral sciences, denote to the finding or conclusions being crafted in a manner that reconciles best with the investigator's or researcher's perspectives and preferences, instead of retaining its empirical, innate or native state.
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.
Also, we should not include 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.
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.
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.
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. 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
^DeMatteo, David; Edens, John F.; Galloway, Meghann; Cox, Jennifer; Smith, Shannon Toney; Formon, Dana (2014-06-01). "The role and reliability of the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised in U.S. sexually violent predator evaluations: a case law survey". Law and Human Behavior. 38 (3): 248-255. doi:10.1037/lhb0000059. ISSN1573-661X. PMID24127888.
^Deitchman, Mary Ann; Kennedy, Wallace A.; Beckham, Jean C. (1991-06-01). "Self-selection factors in the participation of mental health professionals in competency for execution evaluations". Law and Human Behavior. 15 (3): 287-303. ISSN0147-7307. PMID11654262.
^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. ISSN1873-7811. PMID21996291.
^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. ISSN0022-006X. PMID8543719.
^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. ISSN0033-2909. PMID2200072.
^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. ISSN0893-164X. PMID19071978.
^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. ISSN0140-6736. PMID10584742.
^Thompson, Dennis F. (2009-01-01). "The challenge of conflict of interest in medicine". Zeitschrift für Evidenz, Fortbildung und Qualitat im Gesundheitswesen. 103 (3): 136-140. ISSN1865-9217. PMID19554887.
^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". JAMA. 305 (10): 1008-1017. doi:10.1001/jama.2011.257. ISSN1538-3598. PMID21386079.