The efficacy of two kinds of cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) in relation to a clinical population were

compared. The therapies differed on the dimension of how weIDed they were to the rational-emotive

behavioral therapy (REBT), a subtype of CBT that emphasizes a directive, confrontational approach to

encourage a patient to recognize the irrationality of specific thought patterns. Forty adolescents at an

inpatient clinic for treatment of self-destructive behaviors were randomly divided into two groups of

equal size, one of which received the less challenging type of CBT (Treatment A) and one of which

received the more challenging kind of CBT (Treatment B). All patients were treated by trained therapists

in one-on-one sessions for 1.5 hours per day (broken down into 45-minute sessions) for six weeks. All

participants were apprised that they were part of a study, all participants signed consent forms, and all

were told they would be informed of the results at its conclusion; participants exhibiting any behaviors

that required critical intervention were promptly treated outside the plan of the study. Outcome data

on the Revised Behavior Problem Checklist (RBPC)-PAR Edition* collected at the conclusion of six weeks

as shown below (also found in the Data Set Scenario 3 Excel file).

Treatment A Treatment B

74                              80

50                              82

70                              49

60                              44

30                              60

37                              65

34                              77

40                              45

39                               51

70                               70

19                               53

43                               16

25                               38

15                               44

20                              29

55                              51

48                              54

42                              46

60                              18

27                               61

(Please write using word document, and use excel when performing graphs)

1. Results
2. Based on your results, determine whether the data provide evidence for a valid effect.
3. Explain whether or not the results are statistically significant. Support your response with results from the data analysis.
4. Present properly labeled graphs representing the data analysis results detailed clearly for ease of stakeholder interpretation.

1. Conclusion
2. Explain your interpretation of the data. In other words, based on your results, what do you think the data mean? What are the potential

implications of this data for the stakeholders? What do these results mean for future research into the topic area?

1. Justify the data analysis procedures you used to reach your interpretation.
2. Discuss whether it would be appropriate to conduct more statistical procedures to further interpret the data.