A qualitative assessment of QCA: method stretching in large-N studies and temporality

Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) is a descriptive research method that can provide causal explanations for an outcome of interest. Despite extensive quantitative assessments of the method, my objective is to contribute to the scholarly discussion with insights constructed through a qualitative lens. Researchers using the QCA approach have less ability to incorporate and nuance information on set membership as the number of cases grows. While recognizing the suggested ways to overcome such challenges, I argue that since setting criteria for membership, calibrating, and categorizing are crucial QCA aspects that require in-depth knowledge, QCA is unfit for larger-N studies. Additionally, I also discuss that while the method is able to identify various parts of a causal configuration—the ‘what’—it falls short to shed light on the ‘how’ and ‘why,’ especially when temporality matters. Researchers can complement it with other methods, such as process tracing and case studies, to fill in these missing explanatory pieces or clarify contradictions—which begs the question of why they would also choose to use QCA.

Reducing Stigma Toward Schizophrenia: An Investigation into what Information is Most Effective at Decreasing Negative Attitudes to Schizophrenia

<p>Schizophrenia is a chronic mental illness that manifests psychotic symptoms and largely affects an individual’s day to day functioning (Silva et al., 2017). In addition to the incapacitating symptoms of this disorder, patients with schizophrenia face another central concern: stigma (Stuart, 2016). In light of this, an abundance of previous research has been dedicated to discerning the most effective and feasible methods to reduce stigma towards mental illness (Corrigan, 2001). In particular, a large body of research has suggested that education - or more specifically, educating people about the causes of schizophrenia - may be an effective way to achieve this goal (e.g. Boysen & Vogel, 2008). So far, two causal explanations have dominated the literature; psychosocial causal explanations and biogenetic causal explanations. However, only a small number of experimental studies have directly compared the teaching of these opposing two models on levels of stigma (Lincoln, Arens, Berger, & Rief, 2008; Schlier, Schmick, & Lincoln, 2014; Walker & Read, 2002). The findings from these studies show that the effects of causal explanations on stigma are contradictory, thus highlighting the need for another experiment to discern the actual successfulness of these methods at reducing negative attitudes towards schizophrenia. Additionally, due to the mixed findings in the literature regarding the effectiveness of etiological information at lowering stigma, it seems warranted that further exploration into novel, educational teachings is conducted to establish whether causal information really is the most appropriate educational explanation to enlist if stigma reduction is the end goal. In the current research, two experiments were conducted where participants were provided different explanations for schizophrenia (both causal and non-causal in nature) or no explanation at all. Participants received either a biogenetic causal explanation of schizophrenia, a psychosocial causal explanation of schizophrenia, or a creative explanation for schizophrenia, (Experiment One). Comparatively, in Experiment Two participants were provided either a causal explanation for schizophrenia (biogenetic, psychosocial, epigenetic) or, no information at all. Findings from both experiments suggested there were no significant differences between the levels of prejudice and discrimination of participants who saw information which was causal in nature, and those who did not. Further, no evidence was found to support the hypothesis that different causal explanations have varying effects on stigma. Moreover, the previously untested explanations for schizophrenia did not produce stigma reducing effects. Strengths, limitations, implications and future directions are discussed.</p>

Reducing Stigma Toward Schizophrenia: An Investigation into what Information is Most Effective at Decreasing Negative Attitudes to Schizophrenia

<p>Schizophrenia is a chronic mental illness that manifests psychotic symptoms and largely affects an individual’s day to day functioning (Silva et al., 2017). In addition to the incapacitating symptoms of this disorder, patients with schizophrenia face another central concern: stigma (Stuart, 2016). In light of this, an abundance of previous research has been dedicated to discerning the most effective and feasible methods to reduce stigma towards mental illness (Corrigan, 2001). In particular, a large body of research has suggested that education - or more specifically, educating people about the causes of schizophrenia - may be an effective way to achieve this goal (e.g. Boysen & Vogel, 2008). So far, two causal explanations have dominated the literature; psychosocial causal explanations and biogenetic causal explanations. However, only a small number of experimental studies have directly compared the teaching of these opposing two models on levels of stigma (Lincoln, Arens, Berger, & Rief, 2008; Schlier, Schmick, & Lincoln, 2014; Walker & Read, 2002). The findings from these studies show that the effects of causal explanations on stigma are contradictory, thus highlighting the need for another experiment to discern the actual successfulness of these methods at reducing negative attitudes towards schizophrenia. Additionally, due to the mixed findings in the literature regarding the effectiveness of etiological information at lowering stigma, it seems warranted that further exploration into novel, educational teachings is conducted to establish whether causal information really is the most appropriate educational explanation to enlist if stigma reduction is the end goal. In the current research, two experiments were conducted where participants were provided different explanations for schizophrenia (both causal and non-causal in nature) or no explanation at all. Participants received either a biogenetic causal explanation of schizophrenia, a psychosocial causal explanation of schizophrenia, or a creative explanation for schizophrenia, (Experiment One). Comparatively, in Experiment Two participants were provided either a causal explanation for schizophrenia (biogenetic, psychosocial, epigenetic) or, no information at all. Findings from both experiments suggested there were no significant differences between the levels of prejudice and discrimination of participants who saw information which was causal in nature, and those who did not. Further, no evidence was found to support the hypothesis that different causal explanations have varying effects on stigma. Moreover, the previously untested explanations for schizophrenia did not produce stigma reducing effects. Strengths, limitations, implications and future directions are discussed.</p>

Use of Causal Language in Studies on the Relationship between Spiritually-Based Treatments and Substance Abuse and Relapse Prevention

The main goal of scientific research is to explain what causes a phenomenon. However, only well-controlled studies guarantee sufficient internal validity to support causal explanations (i.e., experimental and some quasi-experimental designs). The use of causal claims in non-experimental studies can mislead readers into assuming a cause–effect relationship when alternative explanations have not been ruled out, undermining the principle of scientific rigor and the credibility of scientific findings. Although spiritual practices form part of some interventions for health and behavioral problems, their effectiveness cannot often be assessed via experimental methodology. This paper assesses the validity of causal inferences in published non-experimental studies, and more specifically in studies on the relationship between spiritually based treatments and substance abuse improvement and relapse prevention. We conducted a systematic review using Scopus, Pubmed, and several databases included in ProQuest, for the period 2015 to 2020. Out of 16 studies selected, six studies (37.5%) used correct language in the title, abstract, and discussion sections; 10 studies (68.8%) used tendentious or incorrect language in at least one section. Spiritually based treatments show promising results in some health improvement outcomes. Most studies show transparency when reporting results. However, researchers should be careful not to make causal assertions unless the internal validity of the research is sound.

Understanding therapists’ perceived determinants of trauma narrative use

Background Trauma narratives are a critical, exposure-based component of trauma-focused cognitive-behavioral therapy, yet community therapists rarely use them. Given evidence that intentions to deliver elements of cognitive behavioral therapy vary by component, and that intentions to deliver exposure are the weakest, this study focused specifically on trauma narratives. We drew on a social psychology causal theory (Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB)) and an implementation science framework (the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR)) to glean insight into multilevel influences on trauma narrative use. While the CFIR offers a broad list of factors potentially affecting implementation, the TPB offers causal pathways between individual-level constructs that predict behavior, including the uptake of an evidence-based intervention. The integration of these approaches may provide a more complete understanding of factors affecting therapists’ use of TNs. Methods Therapists (n=65) trained in trauma-focused cognitive behavioral therapy completed a survey about their use of and beliefs about trauma narratives. Content analysis was used to identify common beliefs about trauma narratives. A subset of participants (n=17) completed follow-up qualitative interviews, which were analyzed using an integrated approach informed by the CFIR. Results While most participants reported high intentions to use TNs, nearly half reported that they did not use TNs in the last 6 months. Survey data indicate a number of TPB-related determinants related to using trauma narratives. Qualitative interviews identified CFIR-relevant contextual factors that may influence constructs central to TPB. Conclusions These results highlight the importance of integrating approaches that address multiple theoretical determinants of therapist behavior, including therapist, organizational, and client factors with causal explanations to explain implementation behavior.

Destigmatising Schizophrenia: An Investigation into the Effects of Different Causal Explanations upon Stigma

<p>While many people with mental illnesses are stigmatised, those with schizophrenia are the most severely stigmatised group (Crisp, Gelder, Rix, Meltzer, & Rowlands, 2000; Marie & Miles, 2008; Pescosolido et al., 1999). A vast body of psychology research has been devoted to investigating how education – particularly education about the causes of schizophrenia – can reduce this stigma that is attached to schizophrenia. While there is great support for the notion that education in general can reduce stigma (e.g. Costin & Kerr, 1962; Griffiths, Christensen, Jorm, Evans, & Groves, 2004; Ritterfeld & Jin, 2006), there is still disagreement regarding exactly which set of causal factors the general public should be educated about – biogenetic or psychosocial? Until now, only three previous studies (Lincoln, Arens, Berger, & Rief, 2008; Schlier, Schmick, & Lincoln, 2014; Walker & Read, 2002) have experimentally compared teaching a purely biogenetic causal explanation to teaching a purely psychosocial causal explanation. The results of this research appear to be somewhat contradictory leading to the need for another, more robustly designed experiment. In the present research, two experiments were conducted in which participants’ level of stigma was measured after they were given a biogenetic causal explanation of schizophrenia, a psychosocial explanation, or given no causal explanation. It was predicted that participants given a causal explanation would show reduced levels of stigma compared to participants given no causal information, and that there would be a significant difference in the stigma reduction effectiveness between types of causal explanation. Contrary to these expectations, the results of Experiment One showed no reduction in stigma when participants were given a causal explanation compared to no causal explanation, and revealed no significant differences in stigma reduction efficacy between the biogenetic and psychosocial causal explanations. Experiment Two utilised the same basic paradigm as Experiment One but with the addition of more convincing causal explanations and a manipulation check. The results of Experiment Two gave evidence that both a biogenetic and psychosocial causal explanation successfully reduces discrimination compared to giving no information on the causes of schizophrenia. In addition, a purely biogenetic causal explanation was also found to successfully reduce belief in other stereotypes compared to a psychosocial causal explanation or no causal explanation. Thus, I conclude that stigma can be effectively reduced by providing education about the causes of schizophrenia, and that a biogenetic causal explanation is a more effective stigma reduction tool as it reduces multiple types of stigma. Strengths, limitations, implications and future directions are discussed.</p>

Destigmatising Schizophrenia: An Investigation into the Effects of Different Causal Explanations upon Stigma

<p>While many people with mental illnesses are stigmatised, those with schizophrenia are the most severely stigmatised group (Crisp, Gelder, Rix, Meltzer, & Rowlands, 2000; Marie & Miles, 2008; Pescosolido et al., 1999). A vast body of psychology research has been devoted to investigating how education – particularly education about the causes of schizophrenia – can reduce this stigma that is attached to schizophrenia. While there is great support for the notion that education in general can reduce stigma (e.g. Costin & Kerr, 1962; Griffiths, Christensen, Jorm, Evans, & Groves, 2004; Ritterfeld & Jin, 2006), there is still disagreement regarding exactly which set of causal factors the general public should be educated about – biogenetic or psychosocial? Until now, only three previous studies (Lincoln, Arens, Berger, & Rief, 2008; Schlier, Schmick, & Lincoln, 2014; Walker & Read, 2002) have experimentally compared teaching a purely biogenetic causal explanation to teaching a purely psychosocial causal explanation. The results of this research appear to be somewhat contradictory leading to the need for another, more robustly designed experiment. In the present research, two experiments were conducted in which participants’ level of stigma was measured after they were given a biogenetic causal explanation of schizophrenia, a psychosocial explanation, or given no causal explanation. It was predicted that participants given a causal explanation would show reduced levels of stigma compared to participants given no causal information, and that there would be a significant difference in the stigma reduction effectiveness between types of causal explanation. Contrary to these expectations, the results of Experiment One showed no reduction in stigma when participants were given a causal explanation compared to no causal explanation, and revealed no significant differences in stigma reduction efficacy between the biogenetic and psychosocial causal explanations. Experiment Two utilised the same basic paradigm as Experiment One but with the addition of more convincing causal explanations and a manipulation check. The results of Experiment Two gave evidence that both a biogenetic and psychosocial causal explanation successfully reduces discrimination compared to giving no information on the causes of schizophrenia. In addition, a purely biogenetic causal explanation was also found to successfully reduce belief in other stereotypes compared to a psychosocial causal explanation or no causal explanation. Thus, I conclude that stigma can be effectively reduced by providing education about the causes of schizophrenia, and that a biogenetic causal explanation is a more effective stigma reduction tool as it reduces multiple types of stigma. Strengths, limitations, implications and future directions are discussed.</p>

Re-Examining the Link Between Premarital Sex and Divorce

Objective: This study re-examined the relationship between premarital sex and divorce risk, with a focus on selection mechanisms, number of premarital partners, and gender differences.Background: Premarital sex predicts divorce, but we do not know why. Scholars have attributed the relationship to selection factors such as differences in beliefs and values, but these explanations have not been tested. It is further unclear how this relationship changes by number of sexual partners, or differs by gender.Method: Event-history models of divorce risk were estimated using data from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent to Adult Health. Models included measures of adolescent beliefs and values, parental communication with children about sex, and approximate number of premarital sexual partners. All models were re-estimated with an interaction term between premarital sex and gender.Results: The relationship between premarital sex and divorce is highly significant and robust. Compared to people with no premarital partners other than eventual spouses, those with six or more partners exhibit the highest divorce risk, followed by those with one to two partners. There is no evidence of gender differences.Conclusion: Previously-theorized selection mechanisms thought to explain the relationship between premarital sex and divorce are not supported. Future research should explore either alternative selective or causal explanations for this link.