Comparison of a phased experimental approach and a single randomized clinical trial for developing multicomponent behavioral interventions

Linda Marie Collins, Bibhas Chakraborty, Susan A. Murphy, Victor Strecher

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

34 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: Many interventions in today's health sciences are multicomponent, and often one or more of the components are behavioral. Two approaches to building behavioral interventions empirically can be identified. The more typically used approach, labeled here the classical approach, consists of constructing a likely best intervention a priori, and then evaluating the intervention in a standard randomized controlled trial (RCT). By contrast, the emergent phased experimental approach involves programmatic phases of empirical research and discovery aimed at identifying individual intervention component effects and the best combination of components and levels. Purpose: The purpose of this article is to provide a head-to-head comparison between the classical and phased experimental approaches and thereby highlight the relative advantages and disadvantages of these approaches when they are used to select program components and levels so as to arrive at the most potent intervention. Methods: A computer simulation was performed in which the classical and phased experimental approaches to intervention development were applied to the same randomly generated data. Results: The phased experimental approach resulted in better mean intervention outcomes when the intervention effect size was medium or large, whereas the classical approach resulted in better mean intervention outcomes when the effect size was small. The phased experimental approach led to identification of the correct set of intervention components and levels at a higher rate than the classical approach across all conditions. Limitations: Some potentially important factors were not varied in the simulation, for example the underlying structural model and the number of intervention components. Conclusions: The phased experimental approach merits serious consideration, because it has the potential to enable intervention scientists to develop more efficacious behavioral interventions.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)5-15
Number of pages11
JournalClinical Trials
Volume6
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 2009

Fingerprint

Empirical Research
Structural Models
Computer Simulation
Randomized Controlled Trials
Health

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Pharmacology

Cite this

@article{f0ad004acbf6404c91cba02c44ec0f67,
title = "Comparison of a phased experimental approach and a single randomized clinical trial for developing multicomponent behavioral interventions",
abstract = "Background: Many interventions in today's health sciences are multicomponent, and often one or more of the components are behavioral. Two approaches to building behavioral interventions empirically can be identified. The more typically used approach, labeled here the classical approach, consists of constructing a likely best intervention a priori, and then evaluating the intervention in a standard randomized controlled trial (RCT). By contrast, the emergent phased experimental approach involves programmatic phases of empirical research and discovery aimed at identifying individual intervention component effects and the best combination of components and levels. Purpose: The purpose of this article is to provide a head-to-head comparison between the classical and phased experimental approaches and thereby highlight the relative advantages and disadvantages of these approaches when they are used to select program components and levels so as to arrive at the most potent intervention. Methods: A computer simulation was performed in which the classical and phased experimental approaches to intervention development were applied to the same randomly generated data. Results: The phased experimental approach resulted in better mean intervention outcomes when the intervention effect size was medium or large, whereas the classical approach resulted in better mean intervention outcomes when the effect size was small. The phased experimental approach led to identification of the correct set of intervention components and levels at a higher rate than the classical approach across all conditions. Limitations: Some potentially important factors were not varied in the simulation, for example the underlying structural model and the number of intervention components. Conclusions: The phased experimental approach merits serious consideration, because it has the potential to enable intervention scientists to develop more efficacious behavioral interventions.",
author = "Collins, {Linda Marie} and Bibhas Chakraborty and Murphy, {Susan A.} and Victor Strecher",
year = "2009",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1177/1740774508100973",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "6",
pages = "5--15",
journal = "Clinical Trials",
issn = "1740-7745",
publisher = "SAGE Publications Ltd",
number = "1",

}

Comparison of a phased experimental approach and a single randomized clinical trial for developing multicomponent behavioral interventions. / Collins, Linda Marie; Chakraborty, Bibhas; Murphy, Susan A.; Strecher, Victor.

In: Clinical Trials, Vol. 6, No. 1, 01.01.2009, p. 5-15.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparison of a phased experimental approach and a single randomized clinical trial for developing multicomponent behavioral interventions

AU - Collins, Linda Marie

AU - Chakraborty, Bibhas

AU - Murphy, Susan A.

AU - Strecher, Victor

PY - 2009/1/1

Y1 - 2009/1/1

N2 - Background: Many interventions in today's health sciences are multicomponent, and often one or more of the components are behavioral. Two approaches to building behavioral interventions empirically can be identified. The more typically used approach, labeled here the classical approach, consists of constructing a likely best intervention a priori, and then evaluating the intervention in a standard randomized controlled trial (RCT). By contrast, the emergent phased experimental approach involves programmatic phases of empirical research and discovery aimed at identifying individual intervention component effects and the best combination of components and levels. Purpose: The purpose of this article is to provide a head-to-head comparison between the classical and phased experimental approaches and thereby highlight the relative advantages and disadvantages of these approaches when they are used to select program components and levels so as to arrive at the most potent intervention. Methods: A computer simulation was performed in which the classical and phased experimental approaches to intervention development were applied to the same randomly generated data. Results: The phased experimental approach resulted in better mean intervention outcomes when the intervention effect size was medium or large, whereas the classical approach resulted in better mean intervention outcomes when the effect size was small. The phased experimental approach led to identification of the correct set of intervention components and levels at a higher rate than the classical approach across all conditions. Limitations: Some potentially important factors were not varied in the simulation, for example the underlying structural model and the number of intervention components. Conclusions: The phased experimental approach merits serious consideration, because it has the potential to enable intervention scientists to develop more efficacious behavioral interventions.

AB - Background: Many interventions in today's health sciences are multicomponent, and often one or more of the components are behavioral. Two approaches to building behavioral interventions empirically can be identified. The more typically used approach, labeled here the classical approach, consists of constructing a likely best intervention a priori, and then evaluating the intervention in a standard randomized controlled trial (RCT). By contrast, the emergent phased experimental approach involves programmatic phases of empirical research and discovery aimed at identifying individual intervention component effects and the best combination of components and levels. Purpose: The purpose of this article is to provide a head-to-head comparison between the classical and phased experimental approaches and thereby highlight the relative advantages and disadvantages of these approaches when they are used to select program components and levels so as to arrive at the most potent intervention. Methods: A computer simulation was performed in which the classical and phased experimental approaches to intervention development were applied to the same randomly generated data. Results: The phased experimental approach resulted in better mean intervention outcomes when the intervention effect size was medium or large, whereas the classical approach resulted in better mean intervention outcomes when the effect size was small. The phased experimental approach led to identification of the correct set of intervention components and levels at a higher rate than the classical approach across all conditions. Limitations: Some potentially important factors were not varied in the simulation, for example the underlying structural model and the number of intervention components. Conclusions: The phased experimental approach merits serious consideration, because it has the potential to enable intervention scientists to develop more efficacious behavioral interventions.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=62149083335&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=62149083335&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1177/1740774508100973

DO - 10.1177/1740774508100973

M3 - Article

C2 - 19254929

AN - SCOPUS:62149083335

VL - 6

SP - 5

EP - 15

JO - Clinical Trials

JF - Clinical Trials

SN - 1740-7745

IS - 1

ER -