Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 28, 2026

Testing of all Six Semicircular Canals with Video Head Impulse Test Systems
Published on: April 18, 2019
When meta-analysis continues to mislead: A reply to Østergård and Hougaard (2020)
Barry L Duncan1, Jacqueline A Sparks2
1Better Outcomes Now.
Abstract:
Reply to comments on an article by Duncan and Sparks (see record 2018-10637-001). Østergård and Hougaard (2020) reiterate the flawed conclusions of their meta-analysis of the Partners for Change Outcome Management System (PCOMS) and obfuscate the main point of our critique (Duncan & Sparks, 2020). Despite the lauded statistics and selection criteria, the inclusion of six significantly confounded investigations resulted in a misleading overattribution of meaning to studies of questionable methodology that warranted exclusion. Further, their hypothesis that social desirability leads to inflated effect sizes on the Outcome Rating Scale (ORS) is insufficient. It is not supported by studies finding comparable results to the ORS on independent outcome measures or investigations reporting that change on measures of life functioning, like the ORS, precedes that depicted on symptom scales. While more research is needed, the totality of credible research supports the efficacy of PCOMS. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).
Related Concept Videos
Regression Toward the Mean
Confirmation Biases
Systematic Error: Methodological and Sampling Errors
Sampling errors originate from improper sampling methods or the wrong sample population. These errors can be minimized by refining the sampling strategy. Defective instruments or faulty calibrations are the sources of instrumental...
Confounding in Epidemiological Studies
Strategies for Assessing and Addressing Confounding
Confounding can be addressed at both the design phase of a study and through analytical methods after data...
Bias in Epidemiological Studies