Moving Beyond Efficacy in Child and Adolescent Intervention Research - Book Report/Review Example

?Article Review La Greca, Lochman and Silverman’s article, "Moving Beyond Efficacy and Effectiveness in Child and Adolescent Intervention Research" (2009) is an examination and analysis of the current research done on mental health among young people. It is, hence, both a descriptive and critical discussion of the mental disorder treatments and interventions in the past 30 years as documented by academics and researchers in the subject. The fundamental thesis of the researchers is that evidence-based treatments are effective strategies in approaching mental disorders. In order to explain this, the article explored three important areas, namely: the transition from theory into practical applications by moving towards disseminating treatments in community setting; moving towards personalized mental health care; and, finally, the research on the use of evidence-based model of treatment. These elements are logically presented with a wealth of evidence culled from the extant body of literature on the subject, with a diverse range of sources for every argument and position established. This is an important characteristic of the research design. There was no section explaining the methodological design employed but based on the structure of the article and the methodologies by which the objective was achieved, the design qualifies as longitudinal research framework. This is the case because the research does not use several and diverse sources to describe and analyze a phenomenon, which could make it a cross-sectional research. For instance, when the researchers compared how Evidence-based treatments fared against Usual Care, they cited the work of Weisz et al. No other work was presented. Throughout the section, the researchers discussed Weisz's findings and endorsed his arguments and used some of his points to support their own. This is the dominant approach throughout the research. There are instances wherein several sources were used but these involve mostly two sources, which is not enough to triangulate or corroborate evidence. In addition, these sources were used as support; hence, no opposing finding or argument was included in order to establish some semblance of balance that would accord the research the legitimacy of truly comparing several works. The diversity of sources is also confined to sections providing introductory and background information. The definition or the parameters that make up longitudinal research is still evolving (Menard, 2002, p. 2). This, in addition to the fact that the model is composed of several other approaches, makes it a convenient model for this particular research. Specifically, one can identify case studies as the researchers focused on specific research for a particular point. Then, there is also the attempt at comparing variables between different time periods, although these variables are few and not sufficiently explored, compared and analyzed. There is, however, one excellent section that involved a credible and truly comparative analysis on a particular variable involving at least three sources in varying time periods. This is the section about mediation research. Here, at least three articles were identified as sources and they were examined comprehensively. The section also included an in-depth analysis and comparison of arguments, which enabled the section to provide authoritative concluding statements. The strength of this research rests on the solidity and consistency of its arguments. All the sources and data used worked to validate the thesis. It is also well structured, which implied a systematic and coherent case for the arguments of the researchers in their discourse on evidence-based treatments. It started with a comprehensive background and divided the entire research into clear issues, crucial to the subject being examined. But the above-cited strength is also the research’s weak point. The result is one-dimensional study because most the evidences are not comprehensive, diverse and balanced. Its findings cannot claim strong validity on this account. If the presentation of content seen in the section about mediation research is replicated in the rest of the study, then the researchers could have achieved strong and authoritative case. Even when measured according to the longitudinal framework, it becomes weaker as the data in many parts were not measured systematically or repeatedly. Even when the time variable is ignored, the researchers should have at least used other sources as points of comparison that will not only provide different insights and contribution to each argument and point made but also a system of measurement. The structural problem of the research, however, did not dampen the potential implication of the researchers’ claims. The identification of evidence-based treatment model as the recommended intervention strategy and the description of the reasons why it still fails today are two important information that could contribute immensely to the treatment of mental disorders among the young population and to clinical psychology in general. La Greca, Lochman and Silverman posit a sound proposal that could change the current landscape described by the study. The mental disorder statistics as cited by this article is particularly disturbing not only because of the huge numbers involved but also because of the fact that it remains unchecked even when the extant body of research depicts an active and robust discipline. Ideally, the mental disorder problem should have been diminishing with the numerous intervention models available if the studies done on the subject are to be believed. La Greca, Lochman and Silverman’s work brought everything back into perspective. They effectively identified the problem, made it specific, and confronted it with specific evidences that build a strong case for the adoption and implementation of evidence-based treatment and intervention model. All in all, it is important to remember that what La Greca, Lochman and Silverman were doing was to study the studies done by others. This the main framework by which the validation of their arguments should have been based upon. Hence, there is an expectation of a liberal and diverse number of sources to credibly represent the different schools of thought in this particular theme. Even, when there is a need to emphasize particular view, the article suffers tremendously by leaving out the others. This aspect undermines the content and insights of the researchers, which is unfortunate because their theory can have the potential to meaningfully contribute to clinical practice. References La Greca, A., Lochman, J. and Silverman, W. (2009). "Moving Beyond Efficacy and Effectiveness in Child and Adolescent Intervention Research." Journal of Consulting and Classical Psychology, vol. 77, no. 3, pp. 373-382. Menard, S. (2002). Longitudinal research, Volume 76; Volume 2002. London: SAGE. Read More