EssayRooh

In the behavioral sciences we are often interested in developing interventions that have better outcomes than what existing interventions typically achieve. There is always the drive for progress and improvement among practitioners and academics alike. For instance, researchers might be interested in determining if motivational interviewing combined with cognitive behavioral therapy has a more dramatic impact on substance use for recently released offenders compared with cognitive behavioral therapy alone.  For this discussion post, develop a comparative outcome study that compares a newer innovative intervention to an established one. If possible, stay within the general research topic that you have been posted about and that has been the subject of your literature review work.  My general Research topic Policies Promoting Economic Equity for Black Americans You will find the Kazdin and Handley et al articles especially helpful but the other assigned resources can assist you as well. In your comparative study description, be sure to indicate the following: Be sure to clearly indicate: 1) the target population 2) IVs and DVs and instruments you would use to measure them; will the measure(s) you use favor or be biased toward showing improvements in one of the interventions? 3) the name of research design you would use 4) the data collection points 5) what data you would obtain 6) if there is a comparison or control group 7) if random assignment or a treatment/comparison group matching method is employed  8) how you will ensure that the interventions are employed with fidelity and integrity 9) will the therapists (or those delivering the intervention) be crossed or nested (see Kazdin) 10) how are the treatments similar and different from each other? 11) what would lead you to believe that there would be any  treatment outcome differences? 12) will you collect more long-term or follow up outcome data 13) methods you would use to maximize design sensitivity to treatment effects 14) any other necessary information  Readings: • Edmonds & Kennedy – Chapters 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 • Handley et al (2018) • Bickman & Reich (2014)