Evaluating the effectiveness of behavioral science interventions in dyadic data: A comparison of ANCOVA approach and Dyadic data analysis approach (APIM)

Younesi, Jalil

doi:10.22054/jep.2023.70606.3725

Document Type : Research Paper

Author

Jalil Younesi

Associate Professor, Department of Measurement and Assessment, Allameh Tabataba’i University, Tehran, Iran

https://doi.org/10.22054/jep.2023.70606.3725

Abstract

Evaluating the effectiveness of behavioral interventions in various educational and therapeutic situations in experimental designs requires identifying the structure of collected data and appropriate methods of data analysis. Considering that researchers mainly use ANCOVA to analyze the data of the pretest-posttest control group designs in dyadic samples, in this article with a research example of the data collected from a pretest-posttest control group design, the application and the accuracy of the ANCOVA results and the actor-partner interdependence model (APIM) approach have been compared. The results showed that the APIM model contains more information than ANCOVA; The APIM model makes it possible to estimate the effects of actors and partners and consider them in interpretation and conclusions. When the significance level of rejecting or accepting the hypothesis is close to the critical level of 0.05, there is a contradiction between the results of these two methods, and in these cases, one should act very cautiously for interpretation and final conclusions. In cases where the significance level is far from 0.05, there is no problem and the results of the two approaches are consistent. The shift in focus to the unit of analysis allows researchers to study the complex processes and underlying processes of social interactions with much greater validity.

Keywords

References

آهی، قاسم، محمدی فر، محمدعلی، و بشارت، محمدعلی. (1386). پایایی و اعتبار فرم کوتاه پرسشنامه طرح‌واره‌های یانگ. مجله روان‌شناسی و علوم تربیتی. 37(3)، 5-20.

تیلور، کاترین، اس. (2013). روایی و رواسازی. ترجمه جلیل یونسی. (1398). تهران: دانشگاه علامه طباطبائی.

دلاور، علی. (1395). طرح‌های آزمایشی در روان‌شناسی و علوم تربیتی. تهران: انتشارات سازمان مطالعه و تدوین کتب علوم انسانی دانشگاه‌ها (سمت).

رضائی، هما. (1398). تأثیر سبک زندگی بر رضایت زناشویی زوجین. پروژه منتشرنشده.

سرمد، زهره. (1396). آمار استنباطی: گزیده‌ای از تحلیل‌های آماری تک متغیری. تهران: سمت.

کریستینسن، لاری بی. (2006). روش‌شناسی آزمایشی. ترجمه علی دلاور. (1387). تهران: رشد.

یانگ، جفری، کلاسکو، ژانت و ویشار، مارجوری (2003)، طرح‌واره درمانی (راهنمای کاربردی برای متخصصین بالینی). ترجمه حسن حمید پور و زهرا اندوز. (1386). تهران: ارجمند.

یونسی، جلیل. (1400). کاربرد تحلیل داده‌های زوجی در پژوهش‌های روان‌شناختی: رویکرد مدل وابستگی متقابل بازیگر- شریک (APIM). مطالعات روانشناسی بالینی، 11 (44)، 73-102.

Bond, C. F., Jr., & Kenny, D. A. (2002). The triangle of interpersonal models. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 355–366.

Campbell, D. T., & Stanley, J. C. (2015). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research. RAND Mcnally College Publishing Company, Chicago.

Cook, T. D., Campbellو D. T. (1979). Quasi- Experimentation: Design and analysis issues for field settings. Houghton Mifflin Company. Boston.

Cook, W. L. (2000). Understanding attachment security in family context. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 285–294.

Feeney, J. A. (1994). Attachment style, communication patterns, and satisfaction across the life cycle of marriage. Personal Relationships, 1, 333–348.

Fitzpatrick, J., Gareau, A., Lafontaine, M. F., & Gaudreau, P. (2016). How to use the actor-partner interdependence model (APIM) to estimate different dyadic patterns in Mplus: A step-by-step tutorial. The Quantitative Methods for Psychology, 12(1), 74-86.

Gonzalez, R., & Griffin, D. (2012). Dyadic data analysis. In APA handbook of research methods in psychology, Vol 3: Data analysis and research publication. (pp. 439-450). American Psychological Association.

Hays, D. G. (2010). Introduction to counseling outcome research and evaluation. Counseling Outcome Research and Evaluation, 1(1), 1-7.

Howell, D. C. (2012). Statistical methods for psychology. Cengage Learning.

Kashy, D. A., & Snyder, D. K. (1995). Measurement and data analytic issues in couples research. Psychological Assessment, 7(3), 338.

Kenny, D. A. (1995). The effect of nonindependence on significance testing in dyadic research. Personal relationships, 2(1), 67-75.

Kenny, D. A., & Judd, C. M. (1996). A general procedure for the estimation of interdependence. Psychological bulletin, 119(1), 138.

Kenny, D. A., & Ledermann, T. (2010). Detecting, measuring, and testing dyadic patterns in the actor–partner interdependence model. Journal of family psychology, 24(3), 359.

Kenny, D. A., Kashy, D. A., & Cook, W. L. (2006). Dyadic data analysis. Guilford Publications.

Kenny, D. A., Kashy, D. A., & Cook, W. L. (2020). Dyadic data analysis. Guilford Publications.

Kirk, R. E. (2013). Experimental design: Procedures for the behavioral sciences. Sage Publications.

Knight, A. P., & Humphrey, S. E. (2019). Dyadic data analysis.

Ledermann, T., & Kenny, D. A. (2017). Analyzing dyadic data with multilevel modeling versus structural equation modeling: A tale of two methods. Journal of Family Psychology, 31(4), 442.

McDonald, J. H. (2009). Handbook of biological statistics (Vol. 2, pp. 6-59). Baltimore, MD: sparky house publishing.

Müller, B., Richter, T., Križan, A., Hecht, T., & Ennemoser, M. (2016). How to analyze interpersonal and individual effects in peer-tutored reading intervention. The Journal of Experimental Education, 84(4), 744-763.

Park, B., & Judd, C. M. (1989). Agreement on initial impressions: Differences due to perceivers, trait dimensions, and target behaviors. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 493–505.

Reed, R. G., Butler, E. A., & Kenny, D. A. (2013). Dyadic models for the study of health. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 7(4), 228-245.

Sadler, P., Ethier, N., & Woody, E. (2011). Interpersonal complementarity. Handbook of interpersonal psychology: Theory, research, assessment, and therapeutic interventions, 123-142.

Shadish, W. R., Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (2002). Experimental and quasiexperimental designs for generalized causal inference. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.

Smith, E. (2022). Evaluation of Dyad Effectiveness in a Psychiatric Healthcare Facility.

Sprenkle, D. H. (2003). Effectiveness research in marriage and family therapy: Introduction. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 29(1), 85-96.

Stas, L., Kenny, D. A., Mayer, A., & Loeys, T. (2018). Giving dyadic data analysis away: A user‐friendly app for actor–partner interdependence models. Personal Relationships, 25(1), 103-119.

Tambling, R. B., & Johnson, L. N. (2008). The relationship between stages of change and outcome in couple therapy. The American Journal of Family Therapy, 36(3), 229-241.

Educational Psychology

Evaluating the effectiveness of behavioral science interventions in dyadic data: A comparison of ANCOVA approach and Dyadic data analysis approach (APIM)

References

References

Volume 19, Issue 67
May 2023
Pages 6-29

Evaluating the effectiveness of behavioral science interventions in dyadic data: A comparison of ANCOVA approach and Dyadic data analysis approach (APIM)

References

References

Volume 19, Issue 67May 2023Pages 6-29

Volume 19, Issue 67
May 2023
Pages 6-29