At 09:28 AM 3/3/2007, you wrote:
Good point about the reanalysis. Yes, the authors of the grief piece
apparently felt that their primary results were too disturbing to let
stand without massage, and so tried to have it both ways. That
"rescaling" is rather dodgy, though.
Or they realized that the results of one study do not signify the
"death" of the stages approach. The findings might be cause for
taking a step back and asking more questions, doing more research,
etc., but the findings of any one study alone should not have earth
shattering consequences. It could be Type I error run amok in the
study and future studies could find support for the stages... not
saying they will, but it's a possibility.
But the real news is that at long last someone tried to test the stages
empirically, even if their test was of what the theory has become, not
what Kubler-Ross proposed, and even if they didn't have the courage to
stand by their results.
Or they realize the importance of displaying objectivity in their
research and are willing to admit that the meaning of the findings is
tentative until further support can be found. Rather than jumping up
and down screaming Kubler-Ross is dead (or even the more reserved
sitting in their office laughing at the "poor misguided believers" in
the theory) they understand that their one study does not change the
world. It is only through future replication of the findings that
such a claim could begin to be made. They aren't saying the stages
theory is correct and their study is wrong, but they are showing
proper scientific reservation about the meaning of their findings...
something that I think is becoming more rare as more researchers feel
the need to make more of their findings than is really there. Of
course, this is without me actually having read the article or
anything about it and going simply based on what I've seen here...
END NOTE: And, I really haven't been following this thread at all
until the last few posts and don't really have much of an opinion on
either side, though my first real college paper was on how children
cope with being diagnosed with terminal illness and the death and
dying process in that group... anyway, the point is that if this is
truly one of the first "empirical" studies, then it is hard to make
much of the claim. The first studies on the Mozart effect seemed to
find great effects, though others seem to have trouble finding those
same effects. And although any single case-study in a clinical
setting might be lacking in external validity, when combined across
multiple clients seen by the same therapist and those of other
therapists, it does add some strength to the argument.... yes, that
approach is still going to have confounding factors that need to be
addressed and research needs to be done rather than blindly accepting
a particular viewpoint that sounds good. But, if something has had
good clinical outcomes, it is going to take more than a single study
to make it go away... unless you want to blindly believe the results
of a single study. (again admitting I haven't followed the thread or
really read anything in the area since my freshman year of college,
so there could be more studies out there than I'm aware of...)
And now back to the stack of mid-terms that has been calling out to
me for a couple of days...
- Marc
=============================================
G. Marc Turner, PhD, MEd, Network+, MCP
Senior Lecturer & Technology Coordinator
Department of Psychology
Texas State University-San Marcos
San Marcos, TX 78666
phone: (512)245-2526
email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
To make changes to your subscription go to:
http://acsun.frostburg.edu/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=tips&text_mode=0&lang=english
