Efficacy of Psychological Interventions for Selective Mutism in Children: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Title
Efficacy of Psychological Interventions for Selective Mutism in Children: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials
Publication Date
2020-11-11
Author(s)
Steains, Sophie
Malouff, John
( supervisor )
OrcID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6728-7497
Email: jmalouff@une.edu.au
UNE Id une-id:jmalouff
Schutte, Nicola
( supervisor )
OrcID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3294-7659
Email: nschutte@une.edu.au
UNE Id une-id:nschutte
Type of document
Dataset
Language
en
Entity Type
Publication
Publisher
University of New England
Place of publication
Armidale, Australia
DOI
10.25952/5fb6dfbf5a486
UNE publication id
une:1959.11/29674
Abstract
This dataset is the basis for a meta-analysis done on Comprehensive Meta-Analysis software version 2.2.064. The related abstract of the study follows.
Objective: Selective mutism is a rare childhood anxiety disorder characterized by a consistent failure to speak in certain social situations where speech is expected, despite fluent speech in other situations. The purpose of this meta-analysis was to investigate the efficacy of psychological interventions for selective mutism in randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Method: Five RCTs with a total of 233 participants were analyzed using a random-effects model. A quality assessment of the included studies revealed that psychometrically-sound measures and treatment manuals were used across all studies. Conclusions: The results of the analyses showed psychological interventions to be more effective than no treatment, with the overall weighted effect size of g = 0.87, indicating a large mean treatment effect. This effect did not significantly differ whether only selective mutism specific or non-selective mutism specific measures were included in the analysis. These findings provide support for the efficacy of psychological treatment for selective mutism. Future research could examine the effects of the successful treatments identified in this meta-analysis when compared with a psychological placebo or another bona fide treatment.
Link
Rights
Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International

Files:

NameSizeformatDescriptionLink
opendataset/Sophie Steains 13.07.20 Final SM Meta-Analysis file provided 10 Nov 2020.cma 32.316 KB View document