From your description, it looks like a basic 2x2 RCT design. However, it would be important to look at if the authors collected quantitative data for the therapy outcomes (i.e., used assessments) or if they collected qualitative data to determine therapy outcome (i.e., interviews the 19 members and came up with themes). As the authors call it an 'exploratory' study, it could have been either. Some exploratory studies with low numbers still use assessments (and often nonparametric statistics), so simply assuming it was qualitative due to low numbers would not be appropriate.

Hi Ryan! Thank you for taking the time to answer. 

It is quantitative.

Looking at what you suggested is helpful, it might be that... I still have my doubts though, since the second study was not really randomised according to exposure, and the type of therapy is no longer important, so does it still fit with the RCT design? 

HI Andrea,

The quantitative piece helps. I didn't get that there were 2 separate studies. If it was not randomized, then it would not be an RCT, by definition. I guess I would need more details then. It is possible that it is a simple pre-post, intervention based study such as an X1 O1 X2 (or X1 O2 X2) where the X1 is the pretest, X2 the posttest, O1 one group of individuals, and O2 the other group. If this type of study was done, there should be an explanation that the X1 of one group was equal to the X1 of the second group so as to make a legitimate comparison. If there is any variance between the two groups at the pretest, then it is difficult to make comparisons between the groups.

~Ryan

I think it's a very straightforward correlational study comparing outcomes for two non-randomly selected groups of subjects. Perhaps that's an oversimplification. The question couldn't have waited until I finished teaching Research Methods this Fall? Just kidding. But I think Ryan was on the right track when he suggested pre/post intervention. There would need to be a pre-therapy  survey (or similar instrument) as well as a post-therapy survey to measure at least perceived outcomes and success of therapy. The findings of each of the groups (infidelity versus non-infidelity) would be compared statistically - with fidelity vs. non-fidelity being the one single variable - assuming most other demographics between the two groups are comparable. The research description stated that it was an exploratory study. This would tend to support the idea that the researchers are using a very simple correlational design based on survey instruments - such a simple design is often used in exploratory research because there is not yet sufficient data upon which to base or test specific hypotheses via more quantitative/experimental methods. What do you think? 

Jonathan

Ryan and Jonathan, thank you for your answers, they're really helpful (Jonathan, think of this as warming you up for the class you're teaching).

Yes, there are several pre and post treatment tests. The demographics are similar, I think the main limitation is that there are only 19 couples who reported infidelity vs 115 who didn't.

I am using the Joanna Briggs Institute Appraisal Tools for my systematic review, they have different tools for several different designs. I will be using the Case Control one then, I think that is the one that is closer to the current study.

Thank you both again! 

Forgive me for being a cynic, but after over 35 years in psychotherapy and counseling, I've come to experience first hand the main drawback of survey based research: people rarely tell the truth - and, of course, you know that - but especially about a phenomenon such as infidelity - especially if they believe there's any possible chance their spouse/partner may see their responses. Having done extensive couples' therapy as well for many years, very few couples answer pre-counseling, or pre-intervention questionnaires privately. They usually sit down with their partners and make it a joint effort. Not that they answer each question jointly, but they tend to do it together deriving the sense that it demonstrates mutual commitment to the counseling process. Unless a researcher can actually separate them during completion of the instrument and persuade them their partner will never know their responses, the chances of a more accurate survey increase somewhat. My point, at which I take forever to arrive, as usual, is that I find the 19 vs, 115 dubious. I believe most published research indicates that the rate of infidelity in marriages, or committed couples, tends to run much higher. But that's me and my tendency to mistrust everyone's veracity. In any event, I look forward to following your research. It appears very promising. I have my own professional reasons too, as I believe that as a practitioner it will be very enlightening. Oh, just a slight aside, I met a new sociology instructor today who has taught research methods. She informs me that they no longer even cover experimental research design in their methods courses, limiting them primarily to surveys and questionnaires. I guess Zimbardo left a bad taste in their mouths. Good luck and warmest regards.

Thank you, you are helping me write the "limitations" section! You are right, Jonathan... This is a very difficult topic to research. Most of the studies are only based on disclosed infidelity in the couple (a lot of them disclosed the affair during therapy, you can imagine what that did to the outcomes!). I think that it is more accurate to think about treating the "disclosure of infidelity" rather than infidelity itself, because of the reasons you pointed out... 

Again, thanks for your interest and comments!

I'm glad I could be of assistance, and glad to hear that you found my input helpful. You're correct in that it is a very difficult topic to research due to innate reluctance to confess infidelity. And, yes, I can imagine how the intra-therapy disclosures affected the outcomes. However, this can also be turned into a positive, in that such disclosures during therapy can be examined, and even used as a suggested topic for future research. How does such disclosure during therapy affect therapeutic outcomes, for instance? It is even possible to measure the difference in effectiveness of therapy among couples where infidelity was disclosed during therapy as opposed to before therapy? For instance, does the therapeutic milieu provide a "safety net," so to speak, to preserve or keep intact a relationship in which infidelity has occurred, if it becomes disclosed during therapy? Or does it adversely impact the therapeutic effectiveness and thereby, threaten the relationship's integrity more or less than it would had it been disclosed, or confessed, before starting therapy. Indeed, the possibilities seem almost endless for further research or other considerations in the evaluation of data collected from this study. The most important thing is to stay with your research question, and the intended goals of your research, and do not become overwhelmed by the possibilities, though the possibilities make for good "filler" in a "limitations" or even the "Discussion" section of the paper. Since the study is primarily exploratory, you will not be expected to answer all of those questions, but it will look good for you to acknowledge and be able to discuss such questions as it demonstrates that you have developed an extensive knowledge of the phenomenon you are studying and the ramifications of the findings. It actually is very exciting for me to consider your project. Especially since, if I may interject a personal note, I went through a divorce several years ago in which infidelity was a major issue in the deterioration of the relationship. It's practically a way for me to deal with issues that arose in my own relationship, vicariously as it were, vis a vis your research. Unlike many people, including many colleagues and students, I went into psychology because I was primarily interested in the more severe psychopathologies, and in order to form a basis for the study of transpersonal and parapsychology - not to resolve personal issues. Yet, the longer I've remained in the discipline, the longer I've lived, and the more I've experienced, the more relevance psychological research has become in my personal life. Wow! Its about 5:30 AM here, and I just woke up. Today is my first day back in the classroom for the Fall Semester, and here I am doing self-analysis!  Prompted by your research. I have effectively dealt with those issues, but the reflection prompted by your research has certainly caused me to reflect on those issues again - this time realizing that I have, in fact, resolved their emotional fallout. I thank your that.

Hi Andrea,

Wow, what a project!  You picked a very difficult topic; however, the information you gain will certainly increase what's out there & that's a very good thing.  In my private practice experience & working for the Air Force as a treatment manager for families in which violence is a component, I have to agree with Jonathan--people lie for whatever reason they believe warrants it.  I have found that feeling the need to lie is a good therapeutic topic as well.  

As to what type of research it is: It seems to be mixed w/some quantitative and some qualitative methods.  But is that your question?

It is true that experimental research is really tough to do because an experiment requires random samples.  Your participants are already in their particular group because of a behavior in which they have or have not engaged.  That means it is not a random sample; but that's OK!  You can do a correlation study as opposed to an experiment, which is what most research into human behavior must be because of our nature. 

I hope that helps.  We are getting a storm so I have to turn off my computer.  I'll check back to see if you have found my shortened reply helpful or not.  I am also interested in reading your final product, once you finish writing.

Good luck!

Denise Goins