Is this (other than 53% being corrected to 38%) from the post accurate?
Spillovers: HLI estimates that non-recipients of the program in the recipientās household see 53% of the benefits of psychotherapy from StrongMinds and that each recipient lives in a household with 5.85 individuals.[11] This is based on three studies (Kemp et al. 2009, Mutamba et al. 2018a, and Swartz et al. 2008) of therapy programs where recipients were selected based on negative shocks to children (e.g., automobile accident, children with nodding syndrome, children with psychiatric illness).[12]
If so, a substantial discount seems reasonable to me. Itās plausible these studies also say almost nothing about the spillover, because of how unrepresentative they seem. Presumably much of the content of the therapy will be about the child, so we shouldnāt be surprised if it has much more impact on the child than general therapy for depression.
Itās not clear any specific number away from 0 could be justified.
I find nothing objectionable in that characterization. And if we only had these three studies to guide us then Iād concede that a discount of some size seems warranted. But we also have A. our priors. And B. some new evidence from Barker et al. Both of point me away from very small spillovers, but again Iām still very unsure. I think Iāll have clearer views once Iām done analyzing the Barker et al. results and have had someone, ideally Nathanial Barker, check my work.
[Edit: Michael edited to add: āItās not clear any specific number away from 0 could be justified.ā] Well not-zero certainly seems more justifiable than zero. Zero spillovers implies that emotional empathy doesnāt exist, which is an odd claim.
To clarify what I edited in, I mean that, without better evidence/āargument, the effect could be arbitrarily small but still nonzero. What reason do we have to believe itās at least 1%, say, other than very subjective priors?
I agree that analysis of new evidence should help.
Iād point to the literature on time lagged correlations between household members emotional states that I quickly summarised in the last installment of the household spillover discussion. I think it implies a household spillover of 20%. But I donāt know if this type of data should over- or -underestimate the spillover ratio relative to what weād find in RCTs. I know Iām being really slippery about this, but the Barker et al. analysis stuff so far makes me think itās larger than that.
(EDITED)
Is this (other than 53% being corrected to 38%) from the post accurate?
If so, a substantial discount seems reasonable to me. Itās plausible these studies also say almost nothing about the spillover, because of how unrepresentative they seem. Presumably much of the content of the therapy will be about the child, so we shouldnāt be surprised if it has much more impact on the child than general therapy for depression.
Itās not clear any specific number away from 0 could be justified.
I find nothing objectionable in that characterization. And if we only had these three studies to guide us then Iād concede that a discount of some size seems warranted. But we also have A. our priors. And B. some new evidence from Barker et al. Both of point me away from very small spillovers, but again Iām still very unsure. I think Iāll have clearer views once Iām done analyzing the Barker et al. results and have had someone, ideally Nathanial Barker, check my work.
[Edit: Michael edited to add: āItās not clear any specific number away from 0 could be justified.ā] Well not-zero certainly seems more justifiable than zero. Zero spillovers implies that emotional empathy doesnāt exist, which is an odd claim.
To clarify what I edited in, I mean that, without better evidence/āargument, the effect could be arbitrarily small but still nonzero. What reason do we have to believe itās at least 1%, say, other than very subjective priors?
I agree that analysis of new evidence should help.
Iād point to the literature on time lagged correlations between household members emotional states that I quickly summarised in the last installment of the household spillover discussion. I think it implies a household spillover of 20%. But I donāt know if this type of data should over- or -underestimate the spillover ratio relative to what weād find in RCTs. I know Iām being really slippery about this, but the Barker et al. analysis stuff so far makes me think itās larger than that.