Enhancing Interpersonal Intimacy in Colombian Gay Men Using Functional Analytic Psychotherapy: An Experimental Nonconcurrent Multiple Baseline Design

Examining the normality assumption of a design-comparable effect size in single-case designs

What Works Clearinghouse (WWC, 2022) recommends a design-comparable effect size (D-CES; i.e., gAB) to gauge an intervention in single-case experimental design (SCED) studies, or to synthesize findings in meta-analysis. So far, no research has examined gAB's performance under non-normal distributions. This study expanded Pustejovsky et al. (2014) to investigate the impact of data distributions, number of cases (m), number of measurements (N), within-case reliability or intra-class correlation (ρ), ratio of variance components (λ), and autocorrelation (ϕ) on gAB in multiple-baseline (MB) design. The performance of gAB was assessed by relative bias (RB), relative bias of variance (RBV), MSE, and coverage rate of 95% CIs (CR). Findings revealed that gAB was unbiased even under non-normal distributions. gAB's variance was generally overestimated, and its 95% CI was over-covered, especially when distributions were normal or nearly normal combined with small m and N. Large imprecision of gAB occurred when m was small and ρ was large. According to the ANOVA results, data distributions contributed to approximately 49% of variance in RB and 25% of variance in both RBV and CR. m and ρ each contributed to 34% of variance in MSE. We recommend gAB for MB studies and meta-analysis with N ≥ 16 and when either (1) data distributions are normal or nearly normal, m = 6, and ρ = 0.6 or 0.8, or (2) data distributions are mildly or moderately non-normal, m ≥ 4, and ρ = 0.2, 0.4, or 0.6. The paper concludes with a discussion of gAB's applicability and design-comparability, and sound reporting practices of ES indices.

Power-Related Emotions, Alcohol Intoxication, and Nonconsensual Sex Intentions: The Role of Fear of Intimacy

The problem of alcohol-involved sexual assault against women highlights the need to identify how the presence of alcohol interacts with risk factors associated with sexual assault perpetration. One risk factor for sexual assault perpetration is fear of intimacy, the inhibited capacity to exchange vulnerable thoughts and emotions with a valued individual. Men who have perpetrated sexual violence report higher fear of intimacy and alcohol use than those who have not. However, little research has investigated how fear of intimacy may contribute to sexual assault perpetration in the context of alcohol intoxication. This study examined alcohol intoxication, fear of intimacy, proximal power-related emotions, and nonconsensual sex intentions. Non-monogamous, male social drinkers (N = 94) completed measures and were randomly assigned to an alcohol condition (alcohol [BrAC = .10%] versus control). Participants then read a sexual assault analogue scenario depicting sexual assault against a hypothetical woman and reported power-related emotions and nonconsensual sex intentions. Self-reported fear of intimacy differed across types of past perpetration. Results found that for intoxicated men only, fear of intimacy was positively associated with power-related emotions, and power-related emotions were positively associated with nonconsensual sex intentions. These associations were not observed for men in the control condition who did not consume alcohol. Future research should examine intimacy-related interventions for sexual assault prevention programming.