Running head: LIN ARTICLE: PART 2

Lin Article Critique: Part 2 Kathy Corbin Liberty University July 27, 2012

LIN ARTICLE: PART 2 Critique of Population & Sampling In the Lin et al., (2004) article, forty- three participants were recruited from a drug rehabilitation center which focused on treating clients with severe problems. The participants were referred to the study by their therapists based on their opinion the client would be a good candidate for the study. Participants were then randomly assigned to one of two treatment

groups, but were not randomly selected. Three of the participants were eliminated from the study based on their anger and forgiveness scores. The response rate was not low, because out of the 43 participants, only three were not accepted based on their scores. The remaining 40 participants were then randomly assigned to participate in one of two different therapies, forgiveness therapy or alcohol and drug counseling. The group chosen was drawn from the target group for generalization, however, only one treatment center was used which decreased the odds that the sample would reflect the diversity of the population. It is important to note the 40 participants were given the details of the study and voluntarily provided written informed consent. (Lin, Enright, & Baskin, 2004). In this researchers opinion, the sample cannot be generalized beyond the sample used in the study. Lin, et al (2004) does mention the inability to generalize the findings in the discussion portion of the research paper, but it was noted that the sample size was more than sufficient to detect meaningful statistical differences, a major goal of all treatment studies (Lin et al., 2004). The relevant demographics were noted in the remaining 14 participants completing the study. The researchers were specific in listing the gender, age, race, education, marital status, and religion of the participants. In addition, the dropout rate was equal in both groups, which resulted in a 35% completion of the study, which was within the normal range for other studies of this nature. However, it was stated in the research paper, the small sample size did not allow for generalizing the findings beyond the present group of

LIN ARTICLE: PART 2

participants, leading one to believe the researchers did a reasonable job under the circumstances, but caution is necessary in generalizing any of the results. Critique of Procedures The procedures followed in acquiring participants in this study were not chosen at random. The forty-three patients selected for the study were from a residential drug treatment center that had specific criteria preferred by the researchers. However, the patients were separated into treatment groups by random assignment to FT or ADC, (Linn et al., 2004). The treatments described in this study are sufficiently explained in detail. The researchers describe ADC, alcohol and drug counseling as a common treatment plan for substance abuse. The article is written in more descriptive detail about forgiveness therapy for the reason that its effectiveness was being tested. The treatments were administered by a therapist trained in both FT and ADC therapy with more than twenty years of therapeutic counseling experience. The treatments that were administered were monitored by taping the therapy sessions with a member of the team arbitrarily selecting the tapings for review of consistency between expected and delivered treatments (Lin et al., 2004). The researchers did not conduct the therapy, but chose a treatment provider who had 20 years therapeutic experience and had worked in a 12 step ADC model. It was noted the therapist had used the ADC as his primary intervention for years prior to the study, but he was well trained in the FT approach by the author of the book about forgiveness therapy, three months prior to the experiment. The use of one therapist for both groups made it difficult to know the personal effects the clinician had on the each group. The therapist was reported to have used the same methodology in both types of treatment programs. The setting for the experiment was a natural setting in the sense that it was not conducted in a laboratory. The therapy sessions took place within the current living environment of the rehabilitation residential

LIN ARTICLE: PART 2 facility. The researcher considered attrition in this study stating that, given the high levels of mobility and chaos that characterize the lives of this client population, this dropout rate is not unusual. However, the sample size was more than sufficient to detect meaningful statistical differences, a major goal of all treatment studies (Lin et al., 2004). Critique of Instrumentation The evaluating instruments for the research did not include actual items in the research, but did explain in great detail the description of each instrument. The researchers also included research that supported validity of each assessment. Specialized formatting and detail was used

when the instruments were administered in random order and the response format was provided. Restrictions were placed upon the research due to the use of choosing patients who were selected on dispositions of chronic addiction with relapse, psychiatric diagnoses, poor response to treatment with low motivation to change, and legal issues dealing with substance abuse (Linn et al., 2004). Multiple methods are used to collect information on each variable within this research. The EFI, BDI-II, CSEI, STAI, SSTAEI and vulnerability to drug use scale were used to obtain data on each patient and use for statistical analysis (Linn et al., 2004). The researchers provided sources and well researched information for each published instrument. The self-report assessments were not administered anonymously, therefore, there is some reason of doubt that information obtained from patients could have been influenced by social desirability or response-style biases (Linn et al., 2004). This researcher believes steps were taken to keep the instrumentation from influencing any overt behaviors due to the fact that all patients were exposed to the same therapist as a constant, expected occurrence, causing little deviation from the expected schedule.

LIN ARTICLE: PART 2 References Lin, Mack, Enright, Krahn, & Baskin, W. (2004). Effects of Forgiveness Therapy on Anger, Mood, and Vulnerability to Substance Use Among Inpatient Substance-Dependent Clients, Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 72(6), Publisher: American Psychological Association Pages: 1114-1121. Doi: 10.1037/0022-006x.72.6.1114.