Respond in one or more of the following ways:
• Ask a probing question.
• Share an insight from having read your colleague’s posting.
• Offer and support an opinion.
• Validate an idea with your own experience.
• Make a suggestion.
• Expand on your colleague’s posting.
Only use APA formatting !!
Below is the post to respond to:
Type I and Type II Errors
False positive is the type I error, and it occurs when psychologists or researchers reject a true null hypothesis. On the other hand, a false negative is type II error, and this is a second error that possibly happens when explaining research results. In other words, type II occurs when a researcher fails to reject a false null hypothesis (Stangor, 2013).
From my point of view, when the study relates to psychology (human behavior) or medical (relates to patient), then it is highly recommended that the test’s results should be with a very low probability of false negative (type II errors). In American justice system, type I error is more common than type II error, which is a horrifying matter. This implies that with one mistake in the outcome can free a guilty person from jail (Intuitor. 2001).
In the study of Errors in Treatment Outcome Monitoring: Implications for Real-World Psychotherapy by McAleavey, Nordberg, and Castonguay (2012), discussed the progress of the Treatment Outcome Monitoring (TOM) in psychotherapy to assess the impact of psychotherapy in daily practice. They shown field develops; remaining mindful of the limitations of these measures will continue to be vital for clinicians, administrators, and researchers equally. Such as, develop instruments to assist psychotherapists in assessing the effect of their services, as well improve the quality of services provided in the clinical tools (develop and validate). This research progress created due to heterogeneity in patient presentations, which includes the facts about the effects of type I errors and type II errors (having an equal effect) onthe patient diagnoses, hisher level of severity, and the period in their treatments, e.g. shorter, or longer treatments. For example, it may have a direct impact, different levels in treatment planning to each client, with various levels of assessments e.g. person with the symptom of depression got different treatment (time, level) than a person with panic disorder. All of these factors could have a major effect on treatment outcome monitoring (TOM) (McAleavey, Nordberg, Kraus, & Castonguay, 2012).
The researchers discussed type I errors and type II errors in several topics, such as Treatment Outcome Monitoring,For instance, “Has this particular client experienced significant change in his or her level of symptoms (Howard, Moras, Brill, Martinovich, & Lutz, 1996)?” (p.106) The system of TOM goal is to outline which variables are essential to understanding the patient’s recent state (by offering the scale that is measured), which sometimes challenging to define across a varied population, with it, could be the results either improvement or deterioration. Therefore, when it comes to the clinical cases, for instance, depression and health risk, avoiding any of Type I and or Type II errors, it is highly recommended to assess clients previous to, during, and before ending therapy. As well, using both measures, the general and specific measure, is important, to adapt these two potential errors (McAleavey et al., 2012).
In statistics discoing making (In the general case), if the decision is based on the data, which proposes that an effect is present, in that case, Type I errors are measured false positives. However, indifference the Type II errors, due to the true effect that gave in the population, it showed failures of detection. In fact, Type I and Type II errors are possible, and have the dramatic influence on the way psychologists’ process, and represent research studies. Therefore, psychology research proceeds with an alpha level fixed to .05 (95 % is the confidence level). Additionally, to confirm that the problem is controlled, psychologists highlight the need for repetition of findings over time, which assist in reducing the chance of errors (McAleavey et al., 2012).
Researchers believed that by understanding all type of measures can make some errors and can be discussed to solve it, therefore, to improve outcomes, as it is a challenging to explain measures (general or several dimensions measures) used in TOM. Both types of tests can present a different kind of mistakes; however, type II of errors is much complex with the general score, but in contrariwise, the multidimensional score is likely to Type I of errors to a greater degree compared to the general measure of distress. However, researchers encourage using the positive sides from each type of mistakes, which will assist to lead to improved TOM tools, as the experts are expected to have proper applications, according to the authors (McAleavey et al., 2012).
Furthermore, they assured that these measures are vital for clinicians, administrators, and researchers. Thus, the researchers offered newly developed measurement to minimize Type I and Type II errors by using both scores (multidimensional and a general) for better practice- setting with understanding to the client’s needs. Besides increasing the confidence, they decided to examine the two types of errors in the results of TOM. The purpose is to reduce inferential errors, maximize the efficiency of effect controlling efforts by offering, and it should not be the only standard in determining the feat or not of a particular treatment or therapist (McAleavey et al., 2012).
He, L., Sarkar, S. K., & Zhao, Z. (2015). Capturing the severity of type II errors in high-dimensional multiple testing. Journal of Multivariate Analysis,142, 106-116.
Howard, K. I., Moras, K., Brill, B. L., Martinovich, Z., & Lutz, W. (1996). Evaluation of psychotherapy. Efficacy, effectiveness and patient progress. American Psychologist, 51, 1059–1064. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.51.10.1059
Intuitor. (2001). Type I and Type II errors—making mistakes in the justice system. Retrieved from http://www.intuitor.com/statistics/T1T2Errors.html
McAleavey, A. A., Nordberg, S. S., Kraus, D., & Castonguay, L. G. (2012). Errors in treatment outcome monitoring: Implications for real-world psychotherapy. Canadian Psychology/Psychologie canadienne, 53(2), 105.
Stangor, C. (2013). Research methods for the behavioral sciences (Laureate Education, Inc., custom ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company. (pp. 143-156)