250
false impression that it is acceptable to change methods mid-
way through an analysis in order to produce more robust find-
ings, and this is not appropriate.
The final chapters of the book cover a variety of statistical
tests. Chapters 17 and 18 discuss the t distribution and how it
is used with both one sample and two sample (independent and
dependent) distributions. Included in these chapters are expla-
nations for degrees of freedom, the assumptions for t tests, and
additional uses of confidence intervals. Chapters 19 and 20 pro-
vide formulas for testing proportions in addition to introducing
the one-variable chi-square test and chi-square test of indepen-
dence. Chapter 21 discusses the analysis of variance (ANOVA)
while Chapter 22 covers more significance tests including non-
parametric (nonnormal distribution) tests. Chapter 23 provides
a lightning speed explanation of multiple regressions, logistic
regression, and two-way ANOVA as well as super brief over-
views of structural equation modeling, multilevel modeling,
survival analysis, and factor analysis. The final chapter, Chap-
ter 24, wraps up the discussion on inferential statistics by pro-
viding a balanced model for data interpretation with an
emphasis on how to appropriately assess the generalizability
of one’s results. The balanced model, which is a 5-factor
approach, includes statistical significance, strength of an asso-
ciation, causality, generalizability, and importance. This model
is an excellent blueprint for how social worker’s should critique
a study. It is straightforward and covers the pertinent aspects of
most social work articles.
There are many strengths to the book Statistics and Data
Interpretation for Social Work. As previously noted, the author
makes good use of true social work examples which helps to
define concepts, particularly difficult ones. Another nice ten-
dency is the insertion of previous chapters and specific sections
when concepts are more thoroughly defined. For example, in
Chapter 20 the chi-square test of independence is introduced.
The author reminds the reader that in Chapter 7, Section 7.4,
the concept of directional testing, specifically with categorical
variables was explained.
Adding to this is the approach the author took with provid-
ing theory within most chapters. Theory, in particular statistical
theory, is not the most exciting information a student receives;
however, the way that the author inserts into the chapters is
quite clever. He does so in short bursts that are covertly placed
in the middle of a chapter. For example, in the chapter about
confidence intervals (Chapter 13), a theoretical explanation for
Harris Cooper
Reporting Research in Psychology: How to Meet Journal Article Reporting
Standards Washington, DC: American Psychological Association,
2011. 137 pp. $27.95. ISBN 13: 978-1-4338-0916-3
Reviewed by: Sean Grant, Centre for Evidence Based Intervention,
University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
DOI: 10.1177/1049731512453619
Downloaded from rsw.sagepub.com at UNIV OF NORTH DAKOTA on June 9, 2015
Research on Social Work Practice 24(2)
sample means is not given until a third of the way into the chap-
ter and then it is only one paragraph. Using this approach pro-
vides the reader the necessary theoretical framework but
because it is so quick it is likely they do not even realize they
are getting it.
While the writing is clear throughout most of the book, there
are areas where the author would serve his readers better by
providing more nuanced explanations for his suggestions. This
is particularly true when discussing effect sizes as well as one-
and two-tailed tests. Rosenthal’s suggestion to try a two-tailed
test if a one-tailed test yields results opposite to expectation can
be misconstrued to mean readers can and should switch analy-
ses as practice to obtain wanted findings. More careful wording
and explanation here would be useful to novice social work
readers in understanding when to switch tests as a check on
findings rather than using whatever presents the best results.
The book’s emphasis on presenting examples and discus-
sions on research designs that allow for random assignment/
selection is a more concerning weakness. This design is consid-
ered the gold standard of research and is typically the only
design in which results can be generalized, but by focusing
almost exclusively on random assignment/selection designs
and not explaining why this would be used over other designs
is a disservice to social workers. The reality is that social work
populations do not always have the luxury of random assign-
ment. More importantly, it may not be necessary based on the
context of the research question. Given that many of the statis-
tical tests presented in this book can and should be utilized in
nonrandom experiments, there should be some discussion as
to when this is done, especially given the brevity in which the
author is capable of writing in.
Overall, Statistics and Data Interpretation for Social Work
is a great introduction to the world of statistics as they relate
to social work research. The concepts are presented in short,
concise chapters that both novice and experienced practitioners
will easily understand. It is clear that the author paid attention
to the narration of the book as it is presented in a manner that is
more conversational than didactic. This could be perceived as a
weakness by some academics, especially given the use of
unprofessional references like Wikipedia and the alternate use
of first and third person, but given that this is a book that should
be used at the senior level of a Bachelor of Social Work or the
concentration year of a Master of Social Work program, such a
casual approach may actually be appreciated by students.
Reporting Research in Psychology is a valuable addition to the
growing library of reporting guidelines within the behavioral,
social, educational, and medical sciences. In this reference
book, Cooper thoroughly discusses the items found in the
Journal Article Reporting Standards (JARS) of the American
Psychological Association (APA Publications and Communi-
cations Board Working Group on JARS, 2008). Examining the
content of JARS in depth, Cooper provides rich explanations
Book Reviews
and examples to help the reader adhere to each reporting stan-
dard found in this guideline. Adherence to these standards ulti-
mately promotes transparent, accurate reports of studies, which
facilitates the proper critical appraisal, replication, and applica-
tion of studies to policy and practice.
Cooper explains that the impetus for these reporting stan-
dards was the push for evidence-based decision making in areas
of health and public policy. Events such as the establishment of
the Cochrane and Campbell Collaborations, and policies such
as the 2001 No Child Left Behind Act in the United States,
marked the pervasiveness of this new paradigm. However, over
the past few decades, numerous reviews have revealed consis-
tently poor reporting of research that is meant to inform
evidence-based decision making in health, social, and public
policy (Simera, Altman, Moher, Schulz, & Hoey, 2008b). In
response, collaborations of researchers and journal editors have
made a concerted effort to develop reporting standards that
assist authors in writing high-quality journal articles. These
reporting standards are not requirements that determine the for-
mat for writing or designing a study, but rather are recommen-
dations that highlight essential details that journal articles
should consistently and explicitly include. Reporting standards
are generally collated and disseminated through reporting
guidelines. A reporting guideline is ‘‘a checklist, flow diagram,
or explicit text to guide authors in reporting a specific type of
research, developed using explicit methodology’’ (Moher,
Schulz, Simera, & Altman, 2010, p. 1). Guidelines usually rec-
ommend that authors report a minimum set of study details that
are related to important research biases, are often poorly
reported, and/or are considered by expert opinion to be essen-
tial for all reports about a specific type of research.
In 2006, the APA Publications and Communications Board
commissioned a group of five former APA journal editors to
investigate existing reporting standards in disciplines related
to psychology and to consider how reporting standards might
be incorporated into the sixth edition of the Publication Man-
ual of the American Psychological Association (APA, 2010).
Rather than develop a completely new set of standards, the
JARS Group sought to consolidate existing standards and apply
them to psychology. They also considered adding standards
that are particularly important in psychology but have not been
included in previous guidelines.
Development of JARS began in 2007 with the systematic
identification, collection, and expansion of previous reporting
standards. Content for JARS was derived mainly from a previ-
ous version of the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials
(CONSORT) Statement in medicine (Moher, Schulz, & Alt-
man, 2001), the Transparent Reporting of Evaluations with
Non-Randomized Designs (TREND) Statement in public
health (Des Jarlais, Lyles, Crepaz, & the TREND Group,
2004), and the American Educational Research Association
(AERA, 2006) ‘‘Standards for Reporting Empirical Social
Science Research in AERA Publications.’’ The JARS Group
compared the content of these guidelines, developed a nonre-
dundant list of their reporting standards, and then modified and
Downloaded from rsw.sagepub.com at UNIV OF NORTH DAKOTA on June 9, 2015
251
added to this list so that it may better apply to psychological
research (p. 109). The draft list of standards was then shared
and revised with a group of APA editors, Publication Manual
Revision Task Force members, anonymous reviewers from
American Psychologist, and members of the APA Publications
and Communications Board. The JARS Group then finalized
the list into its current version, and also developed meta-
analysis reporting standards (MARS) in a similar fashion.
Reporting Research in Psychology is a complementary publi-
cation that offers a detailed discussion of the items found in
JARS and MARS.
Compared to other guidelines, this book provides practical
guidance for reporting empirical research studies specifically
in psychology and related disciplines, such as social work. The
main JARS table provides an ‘‘all-purpose’’ list of reporting
standards to address in any article that reports new data. In
addition, due to the breadth of research designs used by social
and behavioral scientists, the JARS recommendations involve
several modules (pp. 9–10), each of which contain a set of stan-
dards for a specific research design or topic (e.g., experiments
with randomized designs). Researchers using the JARS recom-
mendations should add any relevant module’s items to the ‘‘all-
purpose’’ list of standards and then use this combined list when
writing an article about that study (pp. 7–8). In accord with
other guidelines, Cooper notes that these standards are meant
to delineate essential information to report in an empirical
research article, not to dictate the style of a paper.
The first chapter of this book clarifies the need for reporting
standards in psychological research and explains how to use
JARS. Most of the remaining chapters explain and provide
examples for each of the items found in JARS. The organiza-
tion of these chapters follows the structure of a journal article
for ease of use. Chapter 2 focuses on the title, abstract, and
introduction; Chapters 3 and 4 on the methods and results; and
Chapter 5 on the discussion section. In Chapter 6, Cooper intro-
duces MARS. Unlike his discussion of JARS, Cooper does not
explain all of the MARS items due to space constraints, but
instead discusses the most important standards as identified
by a survey of members of the Society for Research Synthesis
Methodology (Cooper & Dent, 2011). As Cooper indicates (p.
91), a full discussion of all of the MARS items in another book
or online supplement would be useful.
In the final chapter, Cooper reviews the explicit methods
used to develop JARS and MARS and discusses plans for revis-
ing these guidelines in the future. Recognizing the importance
of updating guidelines, Cooper conveys the expectation that
JARS can be amended when consensus about other standards
emerges. Namely, the JARS Group has and will continue to
encourage other authoritative groups of researchers, practi-
tioners, and editorial teams to use JARS as a starting point for
modifying standards for their specific subdisciplines and topic
areas. Thus, a major strength of JARS and this book is that, like
other influential reporting guidelines, these already robust stan-
dards accommodate future revision in light of new evidence.
Such revisions could then be incorporated into future versions
252
of JARS and this book (p. 110), keeping its standards current
and based on the best available evidence. For example, several
reporting guidelines have been published after JARS was first
written, many of which are updates of the standards on which
JARS is based. These include an update (Schulz, Altman, &
Moher, 2010) and several extensions (e.g., Boutron, Moher,
Altman, Schulz, & Ravaud, 2008) of the CONSORT State-
ment, as well as standards for reporting behavioral change
interventions (Abraham, 2009). These guidelines could pro-
vide additional or modified standards for future revisions
of JARS, particularly those standards related to intervention
research.
This book has several features that make it a significant con-
tribution to research in psychology and related disciplines such
as social work. First, Cooper methodically explains and elabo-
rates on items in JARS using accessible language. He engages
with the rationale for each reporting standard, revealing why
they are important and how to adhere to them. Cooper also pro-
vides numerous examples from articles published in APA jour-
nals to illustrate how to meet (and not meet) these reporting
standards. Furthermore, JARS rests on a strong evidence base.
Reporting standards should reflect the consensus opinion of a
wide group of experts in a particular field, while also drawing
upon relevant empirical evidence (Moher, Schulz, et al., 2010).
The JARS Group based its standards on a thorough review of
the reporting guidelines literature, and many of the standards
adapted from previous guidelines are based on empirical evi-
dence of poor reporting or risk of bias (Schulz, Altman, &
Moher, 2010).
Given its adaptability, future versions of this book and JARS
could benefit from newly identified best practices in guideline
development and dissemination (Moher, Schulz, et al., 2010).
For instance, the JARS Group could modify the content of
future revisions by employing formal consensus development
methods, such as the Delphi survey (Murphy et al., 1998).
These methods allow multiple stakeholders to be involved,
while also providing robust ways to reach agreement about
guideline content by countering common biases associated
with group-decision making (Moher, Schulz, et al., 2010). As
a result, a wider group of stakeholders could be consulted when
identifying standards for revised versions. A review of 37
reporting guideline developers suggests that involving various
stakeholders in guideline development and dissemination leads
to more uptake of the guideline and greater influence on the
quality of research publications (Simera, Altman, Moher,
Schulz, & Hoey, 2008a). Important stakeholders include pri-
mary researchers, systematic reviewers, funding agency repre-
sentatives, policy makers, consumer group representatives,
and any others who have an interest in the research area tar-
geted by a guideline.
Given the importance of a reporting guideline’s accessibility
to its overall impact, one potential barrier to the influence of
this book relates to the issue of open access. Unrestricted online
availability is a critical publication strategy used for the major-
ity of prominent guidelines to better facilitate the implementa-
tion and uptake of reporting standards. Online open access
Downloaded from rsw.sagepub.com at UNIV OF NORTH DAKOTA on June 9, 2015
Research on Social Work Practice 24(2)
facilitates the widespread use and appraisal of a reporting
guideline by all interested stakeholders, which is essential both
to its impact and to its feedback for future updates of the guide-
line. While the scholarly article introducing JARS is freely
available online, the need to pay for and order a physical copy
of Reporting Research in Psychology could prevent researchers
from accessing and using it. This in turn may hamper the
impact of JARS, for the detailed explication of each reporting
standard (found only in Reporting Research in Psychology) is
essential to effective adherence. Cooper and other representa-
tives from the APA and JARS Group should consider online
open access for Reporting Research in Psychology, similar to
the availability of the CONSORT Explanation and Elaboration
Document (Moher, Hopewell, et al., 2010), to remove these
hurdles to its use and influence in the field.
Given the wide range of study designs that this book aims to
cover, another potential barrier to its effective use is the breadth
of its standards. Cooper notes that some standards may be irre-
levant for a particular study, so authors should decide which to
employ for each article (p. 24). The discretionary use of stan-
dards obstructs the purpose of reporting guidelines: to provide
a minimal, essential set of recommendations to report in any
study for a given research method (Moher, Schulz, et al.,
2010). Having authors go through a comprehensive list of stan-
dards and assess which are relevant for their article may lead to
improper use of the guideline, due to poor judgment or fatigue,
for example. Future versions of JARS could employ the
aforementioned consensus methods to highlight the most
essential items on the ‘‘all-purpose’’ list, or to divide this list
into more modules for particular research methods if length
proves a barrier to uptake. Evaluations of the impact of the
guideline—a key practice for keeping guidelines robust and cur-
rent (Moher, Schulz, et al., 2010)—could help determine
whether this issue proves important and, if so, how to address it.
Though primarily targeted toward psychological research
and APA journals, Reporting Research in Psychology is a help-
ful tool for many stakeholders in the wider social and beha-
vioral sciences, particularly social work. First and foremost,
it provides a checklist for early career and senior scientists to
use when writing reports of their research. A variety of research
designs, settings, topics, and populations encountered in social
work are covered in this book, giving it the potential to increase
the quality of journal articles in this discipline. Transparent
reporting of research has the capability to improve the way
researchers conduct studies as well. Accountability of study
quality via clear and complete reporting at the closing stages
of a project may incentivize researchers to design more rigor-
ous studies at the outset.
It is also a helpful reference book for undergraduate and
graduate students taking research methods courses and learning
about the essential features of empirical studies. Educating
young researchers about basic principles of research reporting
can improve the quality of submitted manuscripts in the future.
Furthermore, the use of this book by peer reviewers and editors
can strengthen and make more efficient the entire editorial pro-
cess (Simera et al., 2008b). It can also assist research funders in
Book Reviews
appraising manuscripts and grant applications, facilitating the
acceptance of high-quality submissions.
Reporting Research in Psychology is a welcome guideline
in social work that can help authors clearly, completely, and
accurately report their research. Journal articles are the primary
means of disseminating research findings with the wider social
work community. As a result, high quality reporting of research
is essential for evidence-based decision making; inadequately
detailed articles could be used improperly in guiding future
research, practice, and policy decisions. Better reporting of pri-
mary and secondary research as a result of standards like those
found in this book can improve the evidence base for social
work practice and policy, leading to better outcomes for the
vulnerable populations that this profession serves.
Author’s Note
Sean Grant is currently involved in the development of a CONSORT
Extension for Complex Social Interventions.
References
Abraham, C., for the Workgroup for Intervention Development and
Evaluation Research. (2009). Wider recommendations to improve
reporting of the content of behaviour change interventions.
Retrieved from http://interventiondesign.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/
2009/02/wider-recommendations.pdf
American Educational Research Association. (2006). Standards for
reporting on empirical social science research in AERA publica-
tions. Educational Researcher, 35, 33-40. doi:10.3102/0013189
X035006033
American Psychological Association. (2010). Publication manual of
the American Psychological Association (6th ed.). Washington,
DC: Author.
APA Publications and Communications Board Working Group on
Journal Article Reporting Standards. (2008). Reporting standards
for research in psychology: Why do we need them? What might
they be? American Psychologist, 63, 839-851. doi:10.1037/0003-
066X.63.9.839
Boutron, I., Moher, D., Altman, D. G., Schulz, K., & Ravaud, P.,
for the CONSORT group. (2008). Methods and processes of the
D. C. Sturm and D. M. Gibson (Eds.).
Social Class and the Helping Professions: A Clinician’s Guide to Navigating
the Landscape of Class in America. New York, NY: Routledge, 2012. 274
pp. $ 39.95. ISBN 9780415893657
Reviewed by: Ijin Hong, Sungshin Women’s University, Seoul, Republic
of Korea
DOI: 10.1177/1049731512468493
Social Class and the Helping Professions is the result of the col-
laborative work of a team of academic experts in the helping pro-
fessions in the United States. Although some implications and
examples typically refer to the American case, the general theme
Downloaded from rsw.sagepub.com at UNIV OF NORTH DAKOTA on June 9, 2015
253
CONSORT group: Example of an extension for trials assessing
nonpharmacologic treatments. Annals of Internal Medicine, 148,
295-309.
Cooper, H., & Dent, A. (2011). Ethical issues in the conduct and
reporting of meta-analysis. In A. T. Panter & S. K. Sterba (Eds.),
Handbook of ethics in quantitative methodology (pp. 417-444).
New York, NY: Routledge.
des Jarlais, D. C., Lyles, C., Crepaz, N., & the TREND Group. (2004).
Improving the reporting quality of nonrandomized evaluations of
behavioral and public health interventions: The TREND statement.
American Journal of Public Health, 94, 361-366.
Moher, D., Hopewell, S., Schulz, K. F., Montori, V., Gøtzsche, P. C.,
Devereaux, P. J, . . . Altman, D. G. (2010). CONSORT 2010
explanation and elaboration: Updated guidelines for reporting par-
allel group randomised trials. British Medical Journal, 340, c869.
doi:10.1136/bmj.c869
Moher, D., Schulz, K. F., & Altman, D. G. (2001). The CONSORT
statement: Revised recommendations for improving the quality
of reports of parallel-group randomised trials. Lancet, 357,
1191-1194. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(00)04337-3
Moher, D., Schulz, K. F., Simera, I., & Altman, D. G. (2010). Gui-
dance for developers of health research reporting guidelines. PLoS
Medicine, 7, e1000217. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000217
Murphy, M. K., Black, N. A., Lamping, D. L., McKee, C. M., Sanders,
C. F. B., Askham, J., . . . Marteau, T. (1998). Consensus develop-
ment methods, and their use in clinical guideline development.
Health Technology Assessment, 2, 1-88.
Schulz, K. F., Altman, D. G., & Moher, D. For the CONSORT Group.
(2010). CONSORT 2010 Statement: Updated guidelines for
reporting parallel group randomised trials. British Medical Jour-
nal, 340, 698-702. doi:10.1136/bmj.c332
Simera, I., Altman, D. G., Moher, D., Schulz, K. F., & Hoey, J.
(2008a). Guidelines for reporting health research: The EQUATOR
Network’s survey of guideline authors. PLoS Medicine, 5, e139.
doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0050139
Simera, I., Altman, D. G., Moher, D., Schulz, K. F., & Hoey, J.
(2008b). The EQUATOR network: Facilitating transparent and
accurate reporting of health research. Serials, 21, 183-187.
doi:10.1629/21183
can deemed to be of interest to European and East Asian helping
professionals as well. It is a very thought-provoking work, given
that usually welfare-related research tends to approach social
issues from, alternatively, either a macro (policy implications)
or a micro perspective (clinical cases)—instead, the authors seek
to let the professional helper reflect on the complexities of a
meso-level theme such as ‘‘social class,’’ a very much welcome
effort for interdisciplinary discussions.
The book is divided in three sections. The first one broadly
introduces the topic of social class, with a special focus on how
it works in the United States. The first chapter opens up with a
definition of social class. It ‘‘[ . . . ] arises from the social and
monetary resources that an individual possesses. [ . . . ] social