Jim wrote:
> Wouldn't this only be true of DRUG studies? Presumably doctors
> performing operations know which one they are doing? I don't
> think the problem of double-blind studies for many treatments is
> unique to psychology.
Two points:
1. The original comparison _was_ to drug studies. Thus for a
psychological study to be directly applicable, it would have to meet the
same standards.
2. There _are_ no true double blind surgical studies. A different
experimental protocol is in use for non-drug related studies in medicine.
> But Steven and/or others mentioned that _plausible_ alternative
> treatments can be developed. Another option that no one has
> suggested yet is to computerize the different treatments. That
> is, write computer therapy programs (sophisticated Elizas)
> according to different therapeutic principles.
That option (assuming the use of a computer program for therapy had been
assessed for validity previously) would be a viable one, as it would allow
the experimenter to remain uninformed as to the therapeutic regime in use
until the end of the research.
The alternative treatments approach, on the other hand, would not be
testing the specific therapy alone, but would instead be comparing it to
another known therapeutic system--a very different kind of experiment. Of
course, a _non-functional_ form of therapy could be invented (and tested
to insure it didn't do anyone any good), but then some pretty serious
ethics questions would be raised.
Good thoughts, but I'll stick to my premise that in some cases
double-blind research is not practical, and alternate ways of assessing
the relative merits of a therapeutic approach (i.e., case study,
longitudinal study, etc.) must be accepted.
Rick
--
Rick Adams
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Department of Social Sciences
Jackson Community College, Jackson, MI
"... and the only measure of your worth and your deeds
will be the love you leave behind when you're gone."
Fred Small, J.D., "Everything Possible"
