Journal club: STEP 3 and the intensive behavioural therapy floor

Posting this under the heading it deserves: Journal club: STEP 3 and the intensive behavioural therapy floor Everything below is what sits behind that.

Two things I would like separated before anyone answers on STEP 3, because they get bundled and then argued about as one thing.

The first is descriptive: what has actually been observed, by whom, and how. The second is causal: why. I am asking about the first only.

The most common failure mode is spending fifty minutes on the effect size and ten on the population. Reversing that ratio would improve most sessions.

The general answer and the answer for your case may diverge here.

I read post #6 twice before replying, because I had assumed the opposite.

The figures usually contain the finding and the text usually contains the interpretation. Separating them for the first twenty minutes is a discipline worth keeping.

I had written a reply contradicting post #6 and deleted it. Here is what survived.

On STEP 3, the part that usually goes wrong is that the question is asked as though it has one answer. It has a range, and the width of the range is the interesting bit.

If you can post the two or three numbers you are working from, several people here will check the arithmetic rather than argue about the conclusion.

STEP 3 is one of those subjects where the general answer and the answer for a specific case diverge, and the thread will go in circles until someone says which one is being asked for.