Research Methods in Psychology - Coursework Example

Research Methods in Psychology Introduction Like any other scientific inquiry dis psychology relies on experiments, studies, and researches to provide scientific evidence to theories, observations, and statements. Research underlies any valid predisposition in scientific realms of inquiry into phenomena and observations that need explanations. Research in its own sense is the only method that has been used over the years to provide knowledge and information. Further, research has proved invaluable in science for providing pivotal information. There are many types of research studies, which vary according to the type of information needed. The double-blind randomized controlled trial is one of the research experiments used in psychology. This paper is going to explain the double-blind randomized controlled trial and how it is useful in psychological realms in reference to a psychological experiment. Double-blind Randomized Controlled Trial In situations where scientists or medical investigators have no knowledge about the nature of medical drugs, randomized and double-blind randomized controlled trials (RCT) are put into use. RCTs are therefore experiments that are used to test the effects of drugs or medical interventions, where a group of people is selected and exposed to certain type of drugs, while others are not. These groups act as the controlled groups and inform the scientists, the nature of drugs they are dealing with. The desires, expectations and the psychological influences of such drugs can influence the perception of things by people who have been chosen for the study. Thus, in medical studies and psychological researches, the extents of influences are known and are therefore done away with through using double-blind experiments. Double-blind randomized controlled experiments are usually administered to deal with expectations and psychological influences of expectations and thus trial outcomes (Zwarenstein, et.al, 2008; Schulz & Grimes, 2002). Double-blind RCTs work under the assumptions that when the researcher and patients in the experiment do not know the type of drugs administered to which group or patient, it is possible to contain the expectations and psychological influences of both the patient and researcher concerning the drug under trial. The researcher and patients are made to believe that the drugs administered are powerful drugs. This ‘double-blinding’ is used to contain the expectation effects. In the realms of psychology and medicine, RCT are the gold standard for the clinical trial. RCTs are a type of specific type of experiment (Chalmers, et.al, 1981). RCTs follow a complex route of procedures that characterizes them. Subjects of study are people randomly selected from a population. The ethical and medical considerations postulate that the study subjects must be recruited on their own will. RCTs require study subjects to be assessed under an established eligibility criterion that leads to recruitment. However, RCTs study subjects must have full knowledge of what they are going to undergo and researchers must get an informed consent (Edward, Lilford & Hewinson, 1998). As the name goes, double-blind controlled randomized trials follow the same procedure but study subjects are divided randomly into different control groups. The different control groups selected randomly are exposed to different trials, but which are all intended to test a single type of medical drug or psychological effect. The randomization and controlled trial is presumably the best in eliminating selection bias and balancing both effects of the drugs. It is important to note that double-blind randomized controlled trials are called so because the controlled groups and the researchers are set in a manner that eliminates the expectations and psychological effects of the drugs administered (Schulz & Grimes, 2002). However, these effects are eliminated by the knowledge that all the groups and researchers know that a new and special type of treatment is being administered (Moher, et.al, 2010). Double-blind randomized controlled trials may be classified under different categories based on hypothesis, outcome of interest and by study design employed in the trials. The use of random controlled groups is important in reducing bias of selection and treatment designs, and allowing for the use of probability theory to justify that the likelihood of existence of any differences between treatment groups is an indication of chance rather than failure. Double-blind randomized controlled trial cannot occur without the use of controlled random groups as they make the double-blinding possible (Schulz & Grimes, 2002). As one of the major clinical and psychological trials, double-blind RCTs must correctly randomize samples to ensure that there is no bias especially in allocation bias or confounding as it would be impossible to covariates outcome of the trials (Buyse, 1989). It is important to note that double-blinding in RCTs is a traditional method of blinded randomized controlled trials (Devereaux, et.al, 2001). In 2010, CONSORT (Consolidate Standards for Reporting Trials) the body responsible for regulating RCTs, gave guidelines that stipulated for the use of the term blinded rather than single-blind, double-blind or any other term that enumerated blinding in randomized controlled trials (Moher, et.al, 2010). Use of RCTs in Psychological experiments Double-blinded RCTs are used in psychological experiments to enhance elimination of expectations and psychological effects that misplace beliefs about the effects of the intervention under study. Mostly, either the study subjects or the researchers who have knowledge about the intervention administered to a particular random group have expectations about the outcome of the trial, which places psychological beliefs and which may on the long run influence the outcome of the trials. Blinding of RCTs eliminate the knowledge of the type of intervention administered to a particular random group by the researcher and the study subjects. The two are made to believe that a special type of intervention has been administered; therefore allowing the trials to get results that are not hampered by psychological effects. A study conducted by Gray, et.al, (2012), to determine the effects of a proposed pharmacotherapy substance called N-Acetylcysteine as a cessation agent among cannabis-dependent adolescents who have been unresponsive to other existing treatments utilized the double-blinded randomized controlled trial (Wood, et.al, 2008). The study utilized the blinded RCT to reduce the psychological effect that would have risen as a result of the expectations of the cannabis-dependent patients and the researchers, which would have affected the results of the trials. The study took into considerations the fact that the proposed pharmacotherapy substance was to be viewed by the researchers and the cannabis-dependent adolescents as ineffective given the history of uses of other substance. This knowledge would have affected the outcome of the trials. The study was aware of the fact that cannabis-dependent adolescents’ cessation habits were psychologically dependent on the knowledge that users could depend on a certain substance to help them. Thus, it was extremely important to utilize double-blinded RCT to ensure that the results of the trials were not affected by psychological expectations of the effects of the substance (Gray, et.al, 2012; Wood, et.al, 2008). The research study utilized a study group randomly chosen from a group of cannabis-dependent adults. During an 8-week course, the randomized study received a double-blind administration of either the NAC or placebo twice in a day and was exposed to other counseling procedures. The researchers assumed that the adolescents with negative cannabinoid tests were the ones on NAC while those with positive results were those administered with placebos. All other factors of the research study were taken into consideration ensuring that their effects were accounted for in the outcome. It was assumed that those on NAC had double odds of sowing negative cannabinoid urine tests (Gray, et.al, 2012). However, insignificant statistical tests gained from other studies could not be used to validate the usefulness of the substance. Unlike other substances that had not undergone such studies, NAC proved to be efficient and safe for use in cessation efforts among cannabis-dependent adolescents (Consumer Network, 2011). Double-blind randomized experiments are effective in ensuring that outcomes of results are valid and reliable. In the Gray, et.al, (2012) study, the double blinding of the trial eliminated the probability of researchers administering the proposed substance to the study groups so as to influence the outcomes. Many psychologists would like to have positive results about their trials and this may influence them to favor the intervention under trial (Wood, et.al, 2008). Further, it may also influence the psychologists to disclose the effects of the intervention to study groups. In many instances, study groups who have knowledge about the type of intervention being administered to them have been known to respond positively to the intervention due to the psychological effects of the intervention, which alters their expectations and beliefs about the intervention. This psychological effect is detrimental to research validity and reliability as it is not independent of any influence, which is accounted for in the research outcome (Wood, et.al, 2008). Conclusion Although, double-blind randomized controlled trials have ethical tags, they are important to medical researchers and psychologists who struggle to find answers to multiple human problems. The effectiveness of the double-blind RCTs lies in the lack of knowledge of the type of intervention being administered to a group by the researcher and the study group. This eliminates the psychological influence that can alter and invalidate the trial findings. Further, the randomized selection of groups reduces chances of biasness both in selection and confounding. As shown in the trial conducted on effects of NAC on cannabis-dependent adolescents and cessation habits, double-blind randomized trials are extremely important in solving social, psychological and medical problems. References Buyse, E. (1989). Analysis of clinical trial outcomes: some comments on subgroup analysis. Controlled Clinical Trials, 10(4), 187-194. Chalmers, C., et.al, (1981). A method for assessing the quality of a randomized control trial. Controlled Clinical Trials, 2(1), 31-49. Consumer Network. (2011). How well do meta-analysis disclose conflicts of interests in underlying research studies? The Cochrane Collaboration. Retrieved from http://www.cochrane.org/news/blog/how-well-do-meta-analyses-disclose-conflicts-interests-underlying-research-studies Devereaux, J., et.al. (2001). Physician interpretations and textbook definitions of blinding terminology in randomized controlled trials. Journal of American Medical Association, 285(15): 2000-2003. Edwards, L., Lilford, J. & Hewinson, J. (1998). The ethics of randomized controlled trails from the perspectives of patients, public and healthcare professionals. British Medical Journal, 317(7167): 1209-1202. Gray, K., et.al, (2010). A double-blind randomized controlled trial of N-Acetylcysteine in cannabis-dependent adolescents. American Journal of Psychiatry, 169: 805-812. Moher, D., et.al. (2010). CONSORT 2010 explanation and elaboration: Updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomized trials. British Medical Journal, 340: 869. Schulz, F. & Grimes, A. (2002). Generation of allocation sequences in randomized trials: chance not choice. The Lancet, 359(9305): 515-519. Wood, L., et.al, (2008). Empirical evidence of bias in treatment effect estimates in controlled trials with different interventions and outcome: meta-epidemiological study. British Medical Journal, 336(7644): 601-605. Zwarenstein, M., et.al, (2008). Improving the reporting of pragmatic trials: an extension of the CONSORT statement. British Medical Journal, 337: 2390. Read More