@article{ref1,
title="One research question, two meta-analyses, three conclusions: commentary on "A systematic review with meta-analysis of cognitive bias modification interventions for anger and aggression"",
journal="Behaviour research and therapy",
year="2024",
author="van Dijk, Anouk and AlMoghrabi, Nouran and Leijten, Patty",
volume="173",
number="",
pages="e104475-e104475",
abstract="Recently two independent meta-analyses on the efficacy of Cognitive Bias Modification of Interpretation (CBM-I) to reduce aggressive behavior came to different conclusions: Ciesinski et al. (2023) concluded that &quot;CBM demonstrates efficacy for the treatment of aggressive behavior&quot; (Abstract), whereas our research team concluded that &quot;findings show limited support for the efficacy of CBM-I to reduce aggressive behavior&quot; (AlMoghrabi et al., 2023, Discussion). How can similar meta-analyses reach such different conclusions? In this commentary, we raise awareness concerning how 1) seemingly identical research questions can be based on meaningfully different definitions of the intervention and outcomes; 2) intervention efficacy conclusions can depend on outcome assessment type; and 3) the interpretation of underpowered moderator analyses should not depend on statistical significance. We end our commentary with a third, more nuanced conclusion that can reconcile the two disparate conclusions: that current CBM-I is an effective experimental manipulation to modify interpretation biases, but not an effective stand-alone treatment to reduce aggressive behavior.<p /> <p>Language: en</p>",
language="en",
issn="0005-7967",
doi="10.1016/j.brat.2024.104475",
url="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2024.104475"
}