治疗模型与结果证据
GRE Subject Test · GRE 心理学 知识点 9 4:33 英语旁白 · 英中内嵌字幕
章节
文本转录
Mechanism and outcome are different claims.
机制与结果是不同的主张。
An intervention may improve an outcome without the study establishing its proposed mechanism.
一项干预措施可能改善结果，但研究并未确立其拟议的机制。
A waitlist comparison controls some natural change, but not all attention and expectancy differences.
等待名单比较可以控制部分自然变化，但无法控制所有关注度和期望差异。
An active comparison can address some of those differences.
主动比较可以解决其中部分差异。
Compare allocation, attrition, outcome definition and follow-up before attributing benefit to a particular technique.
在将益处归因于特定技术之前，请比较分配、脱落率、结果定义和随访情况。
Similar sample means do not demonstrate equivalence without an appropriate design and uncertainty analysis.
若无适当的设计和不确定性分析，相似的样本均值并不能证明等效性。
Each therapy family proposes a mechanism.
每种治疗流派都提出了一种作用机制。
Psychodynamic work targets unconscious conflict and early relationships, using transference; object-relations variants emphasise early relationships in particular.
精神动力学治疗针对无意识冲突和早期关系，并运用移情。 客体关系变体尤其强调早期关系。
Behavioural treatment applies learning principles: systematic desensitisation traditionally pairs a graded fear hierarchy with relaxation (counterconditioning), while exposure approaches need not use relaxation pairing.
行为治疗应用学习原理。 系统脱敏法传统上将分级恐惧等级与放松训练配对，这属于反条件反射；而暴露疗法则不必使用放松配对。
Cognitive-behavioural therapy identifies and tests distorted thoughts and adds behavioural activation.
认知行为疗法识别并检验扭曲的思维，并加入行为激活。
Person-centred work offers empathy, unconditional positive regard and congruence; Gestalt work stresses the here and now.
人本主义治疗提供共情、无条件积极关注和一致性。 格式塔治疗强调此时此地。
Biological treatment includes medication and, for severe depression, electroconvulsive therapy.
生物治疗包括药物治疗，对于重度抑郁则包括电休克治疗。
Match technique to mechanism and presentation: specific phobia points to graduated exposure; obsessive-compulsive disorder to exposure with response prevention; depression to cognitive restructuring plus activity scheduling.
将技术与机制及表现相匹配：特定恐惧症对应分级暴露；强迫症对应暴露与反应预防；抑郁症对应认知重构加活动安排。
A therapist rooted in object relations will emphasise early life relationships, not medication or cognitive distortion lists.
以客体关系为根基的治疗师会强调早期生活关系，而非药物或认知扭曲清单。
Outcome claims need controls because of spontaneous remission and regression to the mean: people seek help at their worst and improve anyway.
结果主张需要对照，因为存在自发缓解和均值回归现象：人们往往在最糟糕时寻求帮助，但无论如何都会好转。
A randomised controlled trial with a waitlist or placebo comparison separates treatment gain from natural course.
设有等待名单或安慰剂对照的随机对照试验可将治疗获益与自然病程区分开来。
Efficacy is performance under controlled conditions; effectiveness is performance in ordinary practice.
疗效是指在受控条件下的表现；效果是指在常规实践中的表现。
Meta-analysis pools trials for a more stable estimate.
元分析汇总多项试验以获得更稳定的估计值。
When bona fide therapies show comparable mean outcomes, the common-factors hypothesis credits shared ingredients such as the working alliance, expectancy and empathy rather than branded techniques.
当真正有效的疗法显示出可比较的平均结果时，共同因素假说将这种相似性归因于共享要素，如治疗联盟、期望和共情，而非特定的品牌化技术。
Comparable means do not prove identical mechanisms, and a single trial cannot settle the question either way.
可比较的平均结果并不能证明机制完全相同，而单一试验也无法就此问题得出定论。
In a fictional randomized study, the mean improvement is 8 points in programme A and 5 in an attention comparison.
在一项虚构的随机研究中，A方案平均改善8分，注意力对照平均改善5分。
What contrast is relevant?
相关的对比是什么？
The between-group difference in mean improvement is 8 minus 5, which is 3 points.
组间平均改善差异等于8减5，即3分。
The 8-point within-group gain includes changes also occurring under the comparison.
A方案组内8分的改善包含了在对照条件下也会发生的变化。
The contrast may support a relative effect under the study conditions, but precision, missing data and outcome meaning are still needed.
该对比可能支持研究条件下的相对效应，但仍需精确度、缺失数据和结局含义作为支撑。
It does not establish the mechanism or superiority in all practice settings.
它并不能确立机制，也不能证明在所有实践场景中均具有优越性。
Original fictional programme contrast: eight minus five equals three improvement points.
原始虚构方案对比：八减五等于三，即提升三点。
Keep the claim within the source example.
请将此主张保留在原始示例范围内。
A review combines ten small trials, all drawn from one type of clinic.
一项综述综合了十项小型试验，所有试验均来自同一类型的诊所。
Why does having ten studies not ensure a universal conclusion?
为什么拥有十项研究并不能确保得出普适性结论？
Pause before the model.
请先暂停，完成这道原创练习再继续。
Shared recruitment and setting can limit generalizability.
共同的招募方式和研究环境可能限制结果的外推性。
Biased measurement, publication bias, incompatible outcomes and weak allocation can persist in a meta-analysis.
在元分析中，测量偏差、发表偏倚、结局指标不兼容以及分配方案薄弱等问题可能依然存在。
Inspect study quality and heterogeneity; pooling does not create independent, representative evidence where the original studies lack it.
需仔细审查研究质量与异质性。 若原始研究本身缺乏独立性和代表性，简单合并数据并不能凭空创造出这种证据。
Inferring causation from a before-and-after gain without a control, or treating comparable means as proof of identical mechanisms.
在没有对照组的情况下，仅凭前后增益推断因果关系；或将可比较的均值视为相同机制的证据。
State the source and the limits.
请说明来源及其局限性。
Two programmes have equal mean change but different dropout rates.
两个方案的平均变化量相同，但脱落率不同。
What must be checked before claiming equivalence?
在声称两者等效之前，必须检查什么？
Pause and write a justified answer.
请先暂停，写出有依据的答案。