Some tidbits from the previously linked paper (Somatic experiencing treatment with social service workers following Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.):
[my emphasis]
The fact that they’re looking at people who volunteered for the treatment is a red flag in my opinion; these may be people who believe in this stuff in the first place.
I don’t think I’ve ever seen an unpublished citation in the reference section of a paper before. You see things like manuscript in publication or personal communication, but to give a year and title to something no one can read?
Does anyone know if propensity score matching is the correct statistical analysis for self selecting groups? I’m a little confused on how to read this: “Of these, 19 participants had missing data on pretreatment variables and thus were removed from the sample, leaving a total of 91 participants in the treatment group, 51 of whom were selected for the comparison sample.” The comparison group is 51 of the 91 that got treatment?