A Meta-Analysis of Cultural Adaptations of Psychological Interventions. Issue 6 (November 2016)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Hall, Gordon C. Nagayama; Ibaraki, Alicia Yee; Huang, Ellen R.; Marti, C. Nathan; Stice, Eric
• Is Part Of: Behavior therapy. Volume 47:Issue 6(2016)
• Page Start: 993
• Page End: 1014
• Publication Date: 2016-11
• Subjects: cultural adaptations -- meta-analysis -- ethnic minorities -- psychotherapy -- psychopathology; Behavior therapy -- Periodicals; 616.8914205
• DOI: 10.1016/j.beth.2016.09.005
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0005-7894

Abstract

Abstract : Forehand and Kotchick (1996) issued a wake-up call to the field to develop culturally responsive interventions. Since that time, 11 meta-analyses on culturally adapted interventions have been conducted. To reconcile the differences of the previous meta- analyses, a new meta-analysis was conducted that included 13, 998 participants, 95% of whom were non–European American, in 78 studies evaluating culturally adapted interventions with psychopathology outcomes. Using a random effects multilevel regression model, the overall effect size ( g = 0.67, p < .001) favored the effectiveness of culturally adapted interventions over other conditions (no intervention, other interventions). There was a medium effect size favoring the effectiveness of culturally adapted interventions over unadapted versions of the same intervention ( g = .52). The overall effect size was moderated by whether the study involved treatment ( g = .76) vs. prevention ( g = .25, p = .03) and whether the study involved specific measures of mood or anxiety symptoms ( g = .76) vs. general measures of psychopathology ( g = .48, p = .02). Culturally adapted interventions had 4.68 times greater odds than other conditions to produce remission from psychopathology ( p < .001) in 16 studies that reported remission. There were greater effects in no intervention control designs (marginal odds ratio = 9.80) than in manualized intervention (marginal odds ratio = 3.47, p = .03) or another active, nonmanualized intervention (marginal odds ratio = 3.38, p = .04) comparison designs in remission studies. Research has yet to adequately investigate whether culturally adapted or unadapted interventions impact culture-specific psychopathology. These findings indicate a continuing need for rigor in the conceptualization and measurement of culture- specific psychopathology and in developing culturally responsive interventions. Highlights: We conducted a meta-analysis of culturally-adapted psychological interventions in 78 studies on psychopathology outcomes. The overall effect size favored the effectiveness of culturally adapted interventions over other conditions (no intervention, other interventions). There was a medium effect size favoring the effectiveness of culturally adapted interventions over unadapted versions of the same intervention. Studies that involved treatment yielded larger effect sizes than studies that involved prevention. The effects of culturally adapted and unadapted interventions on culture-specific forms of psychopathology are yet to be determined.