Stratification of flare intensity identifies placebo responders in a treatment efficacy trial of patients with osteoarthritis.

OBJECTIVE: Studies evaluating osteoarthritis treatment often use increased arthritis activity ("flare") as a selection criterion, although no standardized assessments are available to quantify flare intensity and little is known about how this criterion affects treatment comparisons. This study evaluated the reliability of a flare assessment and how pretreatment flare intensity impacts conclusions on treatment efficacy. METHODS: Using data from a double-blind, randomized, controlled trial (n = 182), we compared 3 osteoarthritis treatments with placebo in patients who met 3 of 4 flare criteria. The Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) questionnaire was used to document levels of pain, stiffness, and physical functioning at baseline and at the final visit. Following factor analytic evaluation, the flare items were standardized and summed to create a flare intensity index, which was used to identify patient subgroups. Analysis of covariance was applied to compare change in WOMAC scale scores from baseline to final visit for assessment of treatment differences among the flare intensity subgroups. RESULTS: The flare indicators appeared unidimensional. Analyses were stratified by tertiles of flare intensity. Mean WOMAC scores improved in the patients receiving active treatment who were categorized into the 2 lowest flare intensity subgroups, but mean WOMAC scores improved in patients in all 4 treatment groups (active and placebo) in the most intense flare subgroup. CONCLUSION: Patients with higher intensity flares may be more likely to report substantial improvement in functional status regardless of treatment. Failure to account for flare intensity in analyses of data from pain trials with flare-based designs may inflate the risk of Type I and Type II errors in the interpretation of study results.

Judging jury service: results of the North Carolina administrative office of the courts juror survey.

This study examined venirepersons' and jurors' levels of satisfaction with jury service. Surveys were distributed to all persons who reported for state court jury service during two one-week periods in each North Carolina county. Questions concerned satisfaction with various aspects of jury service, the effects of service, hardships experienced, details of and reactions to cases heard, and basic demographic information. Responses were obtained from 82 of the 100 counties and 4,654 venirepersons (of whom 1,478 served as jurors). Consistent with prior research on juror experiences, results generally revealed high levels of satisfaction and positive opinions about various aspects of jury service. Service did not influence opinions about the courts for most respondents, and those whose opinions changed tended to become more positive about jury service. Suggestions for future research emphasize giving higher priority to publishing unpublished research on jury experience, explaining the high satisfaction levels observed in samples of jurors, and examining the impact of trial reform on juror satisfaction levels.

How effective is the motion-to-suppress safeguard? Judges' perceptions of the suggestiveness and fairness of biased lineup procedures.

The motion-to-suppress safeguard is designed to prevent false eyewitness identifications from leading to wrongful convictions. This safeguard is effective only if judges are sensitive to factors that influence lineup suggestiveness. The present study assessed judge sensitivity to foil, instruction, and presentation biases. Judges (N = 99) read a description of a hypothetical crime, perpetrator, and identification procedure followed by a motion to suppress the identification. Judges completed a questionnaire in which they ruled on the motion and rated the lineup's suggestiveness and fairness. Foil bias and instruction bias influenced judges' rulings and lineup evaluations as predicted. Hypotheses concerning presentation bias were not supported. These results suggest that judges are somewhat sensitive to lineup suggestiveness but there is room for improvement.

How effective is the presence-of-counsel safeguard? Attorney perceptions of suggestiveness, fairness, and correctability of biased lineup procedures.

Criminal defendants should be protected from suggestive lineup procedures by the presence of their attorneys at lineups. This protection is effective only if attorneys are sensitive to factors that affect lineup suggestiveness. This study assessed attorney sensitivity to foil, instruction, and presentation biases. Stimuli were 8 videotaped lineups in which the 3 factors were manipulated between subjects. Assistant public defenders (N = 109) viewed the videotapes and completed a questionnaire that assessed perceptions of suggestiveness, fairness, and correctability. Attorneys were very sensitive to foil bias but only somewhat sensitive to instruction bias. Their perceptions of presentation bias were contrary to empirical research results. Attorneys reported that they are rarely present at lineups. These results imply that the presence-of-counsel safeguard may be less effective than it could and should be.

Expert psychological testimony on eyewitness reliability before and after Daubert: the state of the law and the science.

This article examines the legal and scientific issues inherent in the use of expert psychological testimony on the factors that affect eyewitness reliability. First, the history of the use of such expert testimony is traced. Next, we look at the criteria that state and federal courts have used in determining whether to admit such testimony, as well as the grounds upon which the testimony has been excluded. We then examine the Daubert decision and discuss its implications for the use of expert eyewitness testimony. We conclude by reviewing eyewitness research and research on jury decision-making that is likely to assume new importance in the post-Daubert era.

Construct validity of the Concern For Appropriateness scale.

Construct validity of the Concern For Appropriateness scale (CFA; Lennox & Wolfe, 1984), a measure of the tendency to adopt protective self-presentation styles, is examined using a multitrait-multimethod approach. Self-ratings on the CFA and ratings by suitemates constitute the two methods, and concern for appropriateness, interpersonal trust, and boredom susceptibility are assessed with each. Multitrait-multimethod analysis shows that the CFA scale exhibits convergent validity against peer ratings and discriminant validity against boredom susceptibility, the only other variable demonstrating convergence. Results indicate that the CFA exhibits construct validity and might therefore prove useful as an operationalization for self-presentation tendencies.

Concern for appropriateness as a moderator variable in the statistical explanation of self-reported use of alcohol and marijuana.

Two studies examine the Concern for Appropriateness Scale (Lennox & Wolfe, 1984) as a likely moderator of dispositional and environmental variables associated with self-reported use of alcohol and marijuana by college and precollege students. In Study 1, data from 408 upper division students show that concern score interacts significantly with religiosity in analyses of use of both drugs, but not with any of 11 other dispositional variables nor with drug-specific environment predictors in analyses of use of either drug. In Study 2, data from 242 recent high school graduates show that concern score interacts significantly with religiosity and drug-specific environment in the explanation of alcohol use but not in the explanation of marijuana use. All of the significant interactions are in the predicted direction. Results therefore suggest that the concern scale is valid for some of its intended purposes.