Psychological Reports, 1991, 69, 82.
O Psychological Reports 1991
ISSUES IN CLINICAL-ANALOGUE RESEARCH VERSUS ISSUES I N RESEARCH COMPLIANCE ' JOHN P. GALASSI
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Summary.-The study by Francis and Stanley is not about clinical-analogue differ. ences but about differences between student-subiects recruited bv a known invest~aator who potentially could influence their course grades versus an unknown invest~gator who lacks that ability. In such research, differences in mean scores and compliance rates must be investigated in comparable and unconfounded subject samples. Linking their research to the common practice of generaLzmg the results of research on college students to what might have been obtained from a c h c a l sample instead, Francis and Stanley (1) provided data purporting to demonstrate that the dental fear scores of students in classes taught by a particular instructor do not differ from those in classes not taught by the instructor. Presumably this result legitimizes the use of both groups of students as analogue subjects and especially those in the particular instructor's class. Even if the dental fear scores of the two groups are comparable, however, this finding fails to establish comparability to individuals who either avoid dentists or seek professional assistance to combat their dental fears. At a minimum, Francis and Stanley would need ro demonstrate comparability of students' dental fear scores with those of clinical subjects (2). For the comparison in their study, it would be necessary to demonstrate that a similar percentage of students from the two types of classes show clinically elevated scores. Unfortunately, no comparison with clinical subjects was presented. Thus, the research is not about clinical-analogue subject differences but about differences between research participants recruited by a known as opposed to an unknown investigator, an important question in its own right. Differences between the two groups can be investigated with respect to mean dental fear scores as well as rates of compliance in completing the questionnaire. Unfortunately, the lack of mean differences in their study is confounded by the fact that the subjects came from two different institutions plus the instructor was known in one of these institutions. To avoid this confounding, it seems necessary to collect the data at the same institution and in comparable sections of the same course (e.g., Psychology 1) in which the instructor teaches one of the sections but not the other. In that instance, one could probably assume that the sections are comparable initially (an assumption which seems more hazardous across institutions) and that any differences are due to being known by the instructor. Second, one could investigate the question with respect to comphmce rates in completing the inventory. Clearly, differential compliance rate differences (100% vs 35.9%) were evident in their study, and it is tempting to conclude that students were more reluctant to refuse the research request of the investigator when the latter is unknown. However, once again, the confounding problem prevents drawing firm conclusions. Finally, the authors' conclusion that "nonresponders are sirmlar to slow responders" (p. 1009) is speculative at best and represents an unwarranted generalization from the comparison of early and late responders in the study. REFERENCES G V (1991) Selecting student analog samples. Psychological 1. FRANCIS,R. D., & STANLEY, Reports, 68, 1008-1010. 2. GALASSI,J. P., BERRIER,G. D., 8: MULIJNJX, S. D. (1982) The appropriateness of using statistically selected college srudenrs as analogues to adult clinical subjects: a preliminary comparison on measures of psychological adjustment. The Behavior Therapist, 5 , 339341. Accepted ]illy 29, 199 1 . 'Address correspondence to John F? Galassi, CB #3500, Peabody Hall,University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill,Chapel Hill,NC 27599-3500.
O Psychological Reports 1991
ISSUES IN CLINICAL-ANALOGUE RESEARCH VERSUS ISSUES I N RESEARCH COMPLIANCE ' JOHN P. GALASSI
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Summary.-The study by Francis and Stanley is not about clinical-analogue differ. ences but about differences between student-subiects recruited bv a known invest~aator who potentially could influence their course grades versus an unknown invest~gator who lacks that ability. In such research, differences in mean scores and compliance rates must be investigated in comparable and unconfounded subject samples. Linking their research to the common practice of generaLzmg the results of research on college students to what might have been obtained from a c h c a l sample instead, Francis and Stanley (1) provided data purporting to demonstrate that the dental fear scores of students in classes taught by a particular instructor do not differ from those in classes not taught by the instructor. Presumably this result legitimizes the use of both groups of students as analogue subjects and especially those in the particular instructor's class. Even if the dental fear scores of the two groups are comparable, however, this finding fails to establish comparability to individuals who either avoid dentists or seek professional assistance to combat their dental fears. At a minimum, Francis and Stanley would need ro demonstrate comparability of students' dental fear scores with those of clinical subjects (2). For the comparison in their study, it would be necessary to demonstrate that a similar percentage of students from the two types of classes show clinically elevated scores. Unfortunately, no comparison with clinical subjects was presented. Thus, the research is not about clinical-analogue subject differences but about differences between research participants recruited by a known as opposed to an unknown investigator, an important question in its own right. Differences between the two groups can be investigated with respect to mean dental fear scores as well as rates of compliance in completing the questionnaire. Unfortunately, the lack of mean differences in their study is confounded by the fact that the subjects came from two different institutions plus the instructor was known in one of these institutions. To avoid this confounding, it seems necessary to collect the data at the same institution and in comparable sections of the same course (e.g., Psychology 1) in which the instructor teaches one of the sections but not the other. In that instance, one could probably assume that the sections are comparable initially (an assumption which seems more hazardous across institutions) and that any differences are due to being known by the instructor. Second, one could investigate the question with respect to comphmce rates in completing the inventory. Clearly, differential compliance rate differences (100% vs 35.9%) were evident in their study, and it is tempting to conclude that students were more reluctant to refuse the research request of the investigator when the latter is unknown. However, once again, the confounding problem prevents drawing firm conclusions. Finally, the authors' conclusion that "nonresponders are sirmlar to slow responders" (p. 1009) is speculative at best and represents an unwarranted generalization from the comparison of early and late responders in the study. REFERENCES G V (1991) Selecting student analog samples. Psychological 1. FRANCIS,R. D., & STANLEY, Reports, 68, 1008-1010. 2. GALASSI,J. P., BERRIER,G. D., 8: MULIJNJX, S. D. (1982) The appropriateness of using statistically selected college srudenrs as analogues to adult clinical subjects: a preliminary comparison on measures of psychological adjustment. The Behavior Therapist, 5 , 339341. Accepted ]illy 29, 199 1 . 'Address correspondence to John F? Galassi, CB #3500, Peabody Hall,University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill,Chapel Hill,NC 27599-3500.
