Nancy Dorr

A meta-analysis of fibromyalgia treatment interventions.

Objective: To evaluate and compare the efficacy of pharmacological and nonpharmacological treatments of fibromyalgia syndrome (FMS). Methods: This meta-analysis of 49 fibromyalgia treatment outcome studies assessed the efficacy of pharmacological and nonpharmacological treatment across four types of outcome measures—physical status, self-report of FMS symptoms, psychological status, and daily functioning. Results: After controlling for study design, antidepressants resulted in improvements on physical status and self-report of FMS symptoms. All nonpharmacological treatments were associated with significant improvements in all four categories of outcome measures with the exception that physically-based treatment (primarily exercise) did not significantly improve daily functioning. When compared, nonpharmacological treatment appears to be more efficacious in improving self-report of FMS symptoms than pharmacological treatment alone. A similar trend was suggested for functional measures. Conclusion: The optimal intervention for FMS would include nonpharmacological treatments, specifically exercise and cognitive-behavioral therapy, in addition to appropriate medication management as needed for sleep and pain symptoms.

Collective Self-Esteem as a Mediator of the Relationship between Allocentrism and Subjective Well-Being

The present studies examined the relationship between allocentrism and subjective well-being. In addition, the mediational role of collective self-esteem for ascribed and acquired groups was tested. Study 1 showed that the reliable relation between allocentrism and life satisfaction was mediated by private, public, and membership collective self-esteem. Study 2 showed that once personal self-esteem was controlled, only private and public collective self-esteem mediated the relation between allocentrism and subjective well-being.

Cooperative Interaction and Intergroup Bias: Effects of Numerical Representation and Cross-Cut Role Assignment

This study investigates whether the greater in-group favoritism typically expressed by numerical minorities could be minimized by cross-cutting role assignment to the tasks in a cooperative setting. Study 1 manipulated the numerical representation of two groups and role assignment to a team task. The results showed that cross-cut role assignment decreased the in-group bias of both minority and majority groups, compared to convergent role assignment. Study 2 further examined the benefits of cross-cut assignment while controlling interaction among in-group and out-group members. The outcomes of Study 2 replicated those of Study 1 and showed that even without prior interaction during the cross-cut task, both minorities and majorities were less biased when role assignments cross-cut category membership. Moreover, the results showed that whereas both social category salience and identification were affected by role assignment, only identification mediated the effect of role assignment on in-group bias.

Race Comparisons on Need for Achievement: A Meta-Analytic Alternative to Graham’s Narrative Review:

A box score review conducted by Graham (1994) concluded that no difference existed between Blacks and Whites on measures of need for achievement. A meta-analysis reported in this article using the same research base revealed reliable and complex race differences. Overall, Whites scored higher than Blacks on measures of need for achievement, but the race difference all but disappeared in studies conducted after 1970. As a possible explanation, the meta-analysis revealed that since 1970 samples of participants from various socioeconomic levels have been preferred and that such samples showed differences between races of only half the size of those shown for samples of participants of strictly lower socioeconomic status. The method of assessment and the age and education of participants also influenced outcomes of race comparisons. Finally, Graham concluded that the research showed a consistent pattern of more positive self-concept of ability among Blacks than Whites. The meta-analysis also found this effect but revealed it to be smaller (though nonsignificantly so) than the difference in need for achievement rejected by the box score. Thus, the meta-analysis found that effects are no larger in an area where Graham concluded they existed than in an area where she concluded they did not.

Benefits of Allocentrism for the Subjective Well-Being of African Americans.

This study examines the relationship between allocentrism and subjective well-being among African Americans and European Americans. In addition, for these groups we tested the relationship between idiocentrism and subjective well-being. Eighty-four African Americans and 122 European Americans completed measures of allocentrism, idiocentrism, self-esteem, extraversion, life satisfaction, and general positive affect. The results show that the relationship between allocentrism and subjective well-being is of greater magnitude for African Americans than for European Americans. Similarly, there is a tendency for idiocentrism to be more highly negatively related to subjective well-being for European Americans than for African Americans. The results are discussed in terms of Baldwin and Hopkins’s theory of African American and European American worldview.

Narrative Versus Meta-Analytic Reviews: A Rejoinder to Graham’s Comment

We examine Graham’s (1995) concerns about meta-analysis regarding (a) the use of poor-quality studies and (b) an overemphasis on quantitative comparisons of substantively disparate literatures. First, many meta-analysts eschew making questionable global judgments of quality so as to exclude studies on an a priori basis. Instead, they demonstrate their concern for research quality by including methods variables in a search for influences on study outcomes. Further, our meta-analysis (Cooper & Dorr, 1995) demonstrated the independence of decisions about (a) what studies to include in a review and (b) whether to use quantitative synthesis techniques by using the same evidential base Graham used for her narrative review. Second, we agree with Graham that substantively disparate literatures ought not be compared. However, we argue that literatures that might be defined as disparate for one purpose could be comparable for another. Regardless, her concern is irrelevant to our comparison of the two reviewing methods.