Allegiance bias

Last updated

Allegiance bias (or allegiance effect) in behavioral sciences is a bias resulted from the investigator's or researcher's allegiance to a specific party or school of thought. [1] [2] [3] Researchers and investigators have encountered various branches of psychology and schools of thought. It is common for them to gravitate towards a school or branch that aligns with their thinking paradigm. Allegiance bias occurs when therapists, researchers, and others start to believe that their school of thought or treatment approach is superior to others. [4] Their strong belief in specific schools of thought can introduce bias into their research on effective treatment trials or investigative scenarios, resulting in allegiance bias. This bias may arise because they have focused on treatments that have shown success in their previous experiences. Consequently, this focus can lead to misinterpretations of research results. Their commitment to adhering to their established thinking paradigm could hinder their capacity to discover more effective treatments to aid patients or address the situations under investigation. [2] Moreover, allegiance bias in a forensic context can be attributed to the fact that experts are often hired by a particular party. Whether an expert witness is retained by the prosecution or defense can influence their assessment of the case, including their perception of the accused's level of guilt. [5]

Contents

History

“Therapeutic allegiance of the experimenter was first used by Luborsky Singer, and Luborsky" in a journal article published in 1975. [4] The basis of their study looked for comparisons among some psychotherapy practices. They found that patients fared better when combined treatments of therapies were used versus only one treatment applied. They found the strongest allegiance are those therapists who are the authors of new implemented practices or supervise others in a practice. They will tend to use their treatment more often.

Psychotherapy

Some reasons why this is occurs in psychotherapy is that there are many new therapies being implemented and researched. Supported research explains that those who develop "specific psychotherapy treatments show more interest for the evidence-based practice of their own therapies compared to others." [6]

Forensic psychology

Most often, forensic experts tend to form a biased opinion in favor of the party retaining their services, rather than maintaining objectivity based on the available evidence. Some studies have evaluated biases in legal cases and have observed that forensic psychologists may be hired by a specific party or attorney due to their preexisting attitude in favor of capital punishment. This predisposition may lead them to be more receptive to accepting capital case referrals from certain adversarial parties, indicating a partial allegiance to cases that align with their opinions. These biases have the potential to undermine justice in legal proceedings, posing a threat to our society. [7] The American Psychological Association is aware of the impact of biases and has developed guidelines to address these preexisting attitudes and biases. These guidelines aim to assist forensic psychologists in maintaining objectivity when selecting court cases. [8]

A study conducted by Sauerland, M., Otgaar, H., Maegherman, E., & Sagana, A. (2020) attempted to reduce bias through falsified instructions. Participants were provided with a case file and a letter from either the prosecution or defense, instructing them to critically evaluate both sides. However, the intervention did not yield a significant effect. Participants were still influenced by the party they were assigned to, similar to when they did not receive any instructions. The bias effect size was found to be medium. The authors emphasize the significance of cross-examinations in forensic contexts until effective interventions to mitigate allegiance bias are identified. [9]

In a study by McAuliff, B. and Arter, J. (2016), the phenomenon of allegiance bias in cases of child sexual abuse was examined. In an online study, experts were assigned to either the prosecution or defense. They were shown one of two versions of a video depicting a police interview with a 4-year-old girl, with the videos varying in the suggestibility of the interview. One interview version included suggestive questions, that imply or lead the respondent toward a particular answer, while the other contained neutral questions that allow an open response. The experts were tasked with evaluating the interview, the child's testimony, and answering follow-up questions related to their ability to testify as experts and the specific aspects of the interview they would focus on in their testimony. The study revealed significant effects: experts were more inclined to support the prosecution's case when the interview's suggestibility was low, and conversely, they were more likely to support the defense when suggestibility was high. Thus, it was demonstrated that even experts are susceptible to the allegiance bias. The researchers highlighted the importance of opposing expert testimony, cross-examination, and, in extreme cases, even the threat of prosecution as strategies to help mitigate allegiance bias. [10]

Analyses

Allegiance bias is also evident when authors and researchers critique each other's work. In some cases, studies assert that a prior article validated a bias, creating a cycle of reinforcement. It is crucial to scrutinize the methods by which these authors arrive at their conclusions. They may inadvertently exhibit allegiance bias by selectively testing previous articles against their own work and overstating the conclusions they draw. Ironically, these authors may be employing allegiance bias to affirm the accuracy of their own research findings. [11]

Critiques

[12]

Despite the fact that researchers find the outcomes of psychological evaluations to be influenced from allegiance from a specific school of thought, the role of allegiance in the research field should be evaluated cautiously. Several meta-analyses have shown contradictory results between experimenter's allegiance (EA) and assessment effect sizes in favor of the preferred conclusions. [6] These are meta-analysis that examines a combination of psychotherapy and non-psychotherapy treatments (e.g., medication) if it was directly compared with another type of psychotherapy or meta-analysis evaluating direct comparisons between different types of psychotherapy. Meta-analysis assessing non-verbal techniques, web-based treatments and non-specific or miscellaneous treatments (e.g., yoga, dietary advice, recreation, biofeedback, etc.) should also be excluded. [6]

Sensitivity

The analysis on direct comparisons did not address the quality of studies and neither did it have any significant association between allegiant and non-allegiant studies; whereas significant differences were observed in cases where treatment integrity was not evaluated. [13]

[14] [15] [16]

In legal cases, evaluator attitudes and other attributes may systematically influence from whom evaluators are willing to accept a referral. Filtering and selection effects in adversarial settings have been assumed to exist, but with few empirical tests of the hypothesis to date. [17] [18] Current studies demonstrate that these experts have preexisting biases that may affect for whom they are willing to work in the adversarial system–thus, likely amplifying the effects of the system-induced biases when layered with preexisting expert biases.

Rating

[19]

Remedies

Objective methods

Disclosures

Reporting policies

Systematic reviews and meta-analysis are essential to summarise evidence relating to efficacy and safety of healthcare interventions accurately and reliably. The clarity and transparency of these reports, however, are not optimal. Poor reporting of systematic reviews diminishes their value to clinicians, policy makers, and other users. [23]

QUOROM

Since the development of the QUOROM (quality of reporting of meta-analysis) statement—a reporting guideline published in 1999—there have been several conceptual, methodological, and practical advances regarding the conduct and reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analysis. Also, reviews of published systematic reviews have found that key information about these studies is often poorly reported. [24]

PRISMA

Realizing these issues, an international group that included experienced authors and methodologists developed PRISMA (preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis) as an evolution of the original QUOROM guideline for systematic reviews and meta-analysis of evaluations of health care interventions. [25] [26]

The PRISMA statement consists of a 27-item checklist and a four-phase flow diagram. The checklist includes items deemed essential for transparent reporting of a systematic review. In this explanation and elaboration document, they have explained the meaning and rationale for each checklist item & have include an example of good reporting, while also where possible, references to relevant empirical studies and methodological literature. [27]

Conflict of interest

[28] [29]

[30] [31] [32] [33] [11]

Assessment

See also

References

  1. ↑ Murrie, Daniel C.; Boccaccini, Marcus T. (2015-11-03). "Adversarial Allegiance among Expert Witnesses". Annual Review of Law and Social Science. 11: 37–55. doi: 10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-120814-121714 . ISSN   1550-3585.
  2. 1 2 Wilson, G. Terence; Wilfley, Denise E.; Agras, W. Stewart; Bryson, Susan W. (2017-03-31). "Allegiance Bias and Therapist Effects: Results of a Randomized Controlled Trial of Binge Eating Disorder". Clinical Psychology. 18 (2): 119–125. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2850.2011.01243.x. ISSN   0969-5893. PMC   4118818 . PMID   25089079.
  3. ↑ Dragioti, Elena; Dimoliatis, Ioannis; Evangelou, Evangelos (2015-05-30). "Disclosure of researcher allegiance in meta-analyses and randomised controlled trials of psychotherapy: a systematic appraisal". BMJ Open. 5 (6): e007206. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2014-007206. ISSN   2044-6055. PMC   4458582 . PMID   26033943.
  4. 1 2 Leykin, Yan; DeRubeis, Robert J. (2009). "Allegiance in Psychotherapy Outcome Research: Separating Association From Bias". Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice. 16 (1): 54–65. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2850.2009.01143.x. ISSN   1468-2850.
  5. ↑ Sauerland, Melanie; Otgaar, Henry; Maegherman, Enide; Sagana, Anna (July 2020). "Allegiance Bias in Statement Reliability Evaluations Is Not Eliminated by Falsification Instructions". Zeitschrift für Psychologie. 228 (3): 210–215. doi:10.1027/2151-2604/a000416. ISSN   2190-8370.
  6. 1 2 3 Dragioti, Elena; Dimoliatis, Ioannis; Fountoulakis, Konstantinos N.; Evangelou, Evangelos (2015-09-15). "A systematic appraisal of allegiance effect in randomized controlled trials of psychotherapy". Annals of General Psychiatry. 14 (1): 25. doi: 10.1186/s12991-015-0063-1 . ISSN   1744-859X. PMC   4570291 . PMID   26379758.
  7. ↑ Gianni Pirelli; Patricia A. Zapf (2008-04-16). "An Investigation of Psychologists' Practices and Attitudes toward Participation in Capital Evaluations". Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice. 8 (1): 39–66. doi:10.1080/15228930801947294. ISSN   1522-8932. S2CID   144255691.
  8. ↑ "Identifying and managing potential bias in forensic evaluations". apadivisions.org. Retrieved 2019-11-21.
  9. ↑ Sauerland, Melanie; Otgaar, Henry; Maegherman, Enide; Sagana, Anna (July 2020). "Allegiance Bias in Statement Reliability Evaluations Is Not Eliminated by Falsification Instructions". Zeitschrift für Psychologie. 228 (3): 210–215. doi:10.1027/2151-2604/a000416. ISSN   2190-8370.
  10. ↑ McAuliff, Bradley D.; Arter, Jeana L. (October 2016). "Adversarial allegiance: The devil is in the evidence details, not just on the witness stand". Law and Human Behavior. 40 (5): 524–535. doi:10.1037/lhb0000198. ISSN   1573-661X. PMC   5036989 . PMID   27243362.
  11. 1 2 Lieb, Klaus; von der Osten-Sacken, Jan; Stoffers-Winterling, Jutta; Reiss, Neele; Barth, Jürgen (2016-04-26). "Conflicts of interest and spin in reviews of psychological therapies: a systematic review". BMJ Open. 6 (4): e010606. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2015-010606. ISSN   2044-6055. PMC   4853969 . PMID   27118287.
  12. ↑ Leykin, Yan; DeRubeis, Robert J. (2009-03-01). "Allegiance in Psychotherapy Outcome Research: Separating Association From Bias". Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice. 16 (1): 54–65. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2850.2009.01143.x. ISSN   1468-2850.
  13. ↑ Weisz, John R.; Jensen-Doss, Amanda; Hawley, Kristin M. (2006). "Evidence-based youth psychotherapies versus usual clinical care: A meta-analysis of direct comparisons". American Psychologist. 61 (7): 671–689. CiteSeerX   10.1.1.515.3764 . doi:10.1037/0003-066x.61.7.671. PMID   17032068.
  14. ↑ Wampold, Bruce E.; Budge, Stephanie L.; Laska, Kevin M.; Del Re, A. C.; Baardseth, Timothy P.; Fluckiger, Christoph; Minami, Takuya; Kivlighan, D. Martin; Gunn, Wade (2011-12-01). "Evidence-based treatments for depression and anxiety versus treatment-as-usual: a meta-analysis of direct comparisons". Clinical Psychology Review. 31 (8): 1304–1312. doi:10.1016/j.cpr.2011.07.012. ISSN   1873-7811. PMID   21996291.
  15. ↑ Munder, Thomas; Gerger, Heike; Trelle, Sven; Barth, Jürgen (2011-11-01). "Testing the allegiance bias hypothesis: A meta-analysis". Psychotherapy Research. 21 (6): 670–684. doi:10.1080/10503307.2011.602752. ISSN   1050-3307. PMID   21797736. S2CID   205711756.
  16. ↑ Munder, Thomas; Gerger, Heike; Trelle, Sven; Barth, Jürgen (2011-11-01). "Testing the allegiance bias hypothesis: a meta-analysis". Psychotherapy Research. 21 (6): 670–684. doi:10.1080/10503307.2011.602752. ISSN   1468-4381. PMID   21797736. S2CID   205711756.
  17. ↑ Murrie, Daniel C.; Boccaccini, Marcus T.; Guarnera, Lucy A.; Rufino, Katrina A. (2013-10-01). "Are forensic experts biased by the side that retained them?". Psychological Science. 24 (10): 1889–1897. doi:10.1177/0956797613481812. ISSN   1467-9280. PMID   23969777. S2CID   46521726.
  18. ↑ Murrie, Daniel C.; Boccaccini, Marcus T.; Guarnera, Lucy A.; Rufino, Katrina A. (2013-08-22). "Are Forensic Experts Biased by the Side That Retained Them?". Psychological Science. 24 (10): 1889–1897. doi:10.1177/0956797613481812. PMID   23969777. S2CID   46521726.
  19. ↑ Gaffan, E. A.; Tsaousis, I.; Kemp-Wheeler, S. M. (1995-12-01). "Researcher allegiance and meta-analysis: the case of cognitive therapy for depression". Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 63 (6): 966–980. doi:10.1037/0022-006X.63.6.966. ISSN   0022-006X. PMID   8543719.
  20. ↑ "Identifying and managing potential bias in forensic evaluations". APA Div. 41: American Psychology-Law Society. Retrieved 2017-03-31.
  21. ↑ Robinson, L. A.; Berman, J. S.; Neimeyer, R. A. (1990-07-01). "Psychotherapy for the treatment of depression: a comprehensive review of controlled outcome research". Psychological Bulletin. 108 (1): 30–49. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.108.1.30. ISSN   0033-2909. PMID   2200072.
  22. ↑ Imel, Zac E.; Wampold, Bruce E.; Miller, Scott D.; Fleming, Reg R. (2008-12-01). "Distinctions without a difference: direct comparisons of psychotherapies for alcohol use disorders". Psychology of Addictive Behaviors. 22 (4): 533–543. doi:10.1037/a0013171. ISSN   0893-164X. PMID   19071978.
  23. ↑ Moher, David; Tetzlaff, Jennifer; Tricco, Andrea C.; Sampson, Margaret; Altman, Douglas G. (2007-03-27). "Epidemiology and reporting characteristics of systematic reviews". PLOS Medicine. 4 (3): e78. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.0040078 . ISSN   1549-1676. PMC   1831728 . PMID   17388659.
  24. ↑ Moher, D.; Cook, D. J.; Eastwood, S.; Olkin, I.; Rennie, D.; Stroup, D. F. (1999-11-27). "Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: the QUOROM statement. Quality of Reporting of Meta-analyses". Lancet. 354 (9193): 1896–1900. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(99)04149-5. ISSN   0140-6736. PMID   10584742. S2CID   21826935.
  25. ↑ Wen, Jin; Ren, Yu; Wang, Li; Li, Youping; Liu, Ya; Zhou, Min; Liu, Ping; Ye, Lu; Li, Yi (2008-08-01). "The reporting quality of meta-analyses improves: a random sampling study". Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 61 (8): 770–775. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2007.10.008. ISSN   0895-4356. PMID   18411041.
  26. ↑ Wen, Jin; Ren, Yu; Wang, Li; Li, Youping; Liu, Ya; Zhou, Min; Liu, Ping; Ye, Lu; Li, Yi; Tian, Wei (2008). "The reporting quality of meta-analyses improves: a random sampling study". Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 61 (8): 770–775. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2007.10.008. PMID   18411041.
  27. ↑ Liberati, Alessandro; Altman, Douglas G; Tetzlaff, Jennifer; Mulrow, Cynthia; Gøtzsche, Peter C; Ioannidis, John P A; Clarke, Mike; Devereaux, P J; Kleijnen, Jos (2009-07-21). "The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration". The BMJ. 339 (jul21 1): b2700. doi:10.1136/bmj.b2700. ISSN   0959-8138. PMC   2714672 . PMID   19622552.
  28. ↑ Thompson, Dennis F. (2009-01-01). "The challenge of conflict of interest in medicine". Zeitschrift für Evidenz, Fortbildung und Qualität im Gesundheitswesen. 103 (3): 136–140. doi:10.1016/j.zefq.2009.02.021. ISSN   1865-9217. PMID   19554887. S2CID   7219269.
  29. ↑ Institute of Medicine (US) Committee on Conflict of Interest in Medical Research, Education, and Practice (2009-01-01). Lo, Bernard; Field, Marilyn J. (eds.). Conflict of Interest in Medical Research, Education, and Practice. The National Academies Collection: Reports funded by National Institutes of Health. Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US). ISBN   9780309131889. PMID   20662118.
  30. ↑ Maj, Mario (2008-08-01). "Non-financial conflicts of interests in psychiatric research and practice". The British Journal of Psychiatry. 193 (2): 91–92. doi: 10.1192/bjp.bp.108.049361 . ISSN   0007-1250. PMID   18669986.
  31. ↑ Maj, Mario (2008-08-01). "Non-financial conflicts of interests in psychiatric research and practice". The British Journal of Psychiatry. 193 (2): 91–92. doi: 10.1192/bjp.bp.108.049361 . ISSN   0007-1250. PMID   18669986.
  32. ↑ Roseman, Michelle; Milette, Katherine; Bero, Lisa A.; Coyne, James C.; Lexchin, Joel; Turner, Erick H.; Thombs, Brett D. (2011-03-09). "Reporting of conflicts of interest in meta-analyses of trials of pharmacological treatments" (PDF). JAMA. 305 (10): 1008–1017. doi:10.1001/jama.2011.257. hdl: 11370/d4a95ee2-429f-45a4-a917-d794ee954797 . ISSN   1538-3598. PMID   21386079. S2CID   11270323.
  33. ↑ Roseman, Michelle (2011-03-09). "Reporting of Conflicts of Interest in Meta-analyses of Trials of Pharmacological Treatments" (PDF). JAMA. 305 (10): 1008–17. doi:10.1001/jama.2011.257. hdl: 11370/d4a95ee2-429f-45a4-a917-d794ee954797 . ISSN   0098-7484. PMID   21386079. S2CID   11270323.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.