Alex R. Dopp
- Courses2
- Reviews3
- School: University of Missouri
- Campus: Columbia
- Department: Psychology
- Email address: Join to see
- Phone: Join to see
-
Location:
Columbia, MO - 65211 - Dates at University of Missouri: December 2013 - May 2017
- Office Hours: Join to see
Biography
University of Missouri Columbia - Psychology
Associate Behavioral/Social Scientist at RAND Corporation
Research
Alex
Dopp
Santa Monica, California
I am an implementation scientist and child clinical psychologist who studies the use of research evidence, and related policy implications, for improving youth mental health services. I have rare dual expertise in mental health services and economic evaluation, which has allowed me to conduct research on "upstream" influences (financing strategies) and "downstream" outcomes (economic impact) of the implementation of evidence-based youth mental health treatments. My research involves frequent collaboration with a variety of health policy, services, economics, and outcomes researchers, as well as patients and community stakeholders, within an interdisciplinary team science approach.
Experience
University of Arkansas
Assistant Professor
Alex worked at University of Arkansas as a Assistant Professor
University of Missouri
Research Fellow
Alex worked at University of Missouri as a Research Fellow
RAND Corporation
Associate Behavioral/Social Scientist
Alex worked at RAND Corporation as a Associate Behavioral/Social Scientist
Medical University of South Carolina
Psychology Intern
Alex worked at Medical University of South Carolina as a Psychology Intern
Education
University of Michigan
B.A.
Psychology
University of Missouri-Columbia
Ph.D.
Clinical Psychology
University of Missouri
Research Fellow
Publications
The Economic Impact of Multisystemic Therapy Through Midlife: A Cost– Benefit Analysis With Serious Juvenile Offenders and Their Siblings
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology (in press)
Objective: This study investigated the economic benefits of multisystemic therapy (MST) vs. individual therapy (IT) using arrest data from 176 serious juvenile offenders and 129 of their closest-in-age siblings who participated, on average, 25 years earlier in a randomized clinical trial (Borduin et al., 1995). Method: Two types of benefits of MST were evaluated: (a) The value to taxpayers was derived from measures of criminal justice system expenses (e.g., police and sheriff’s offices, court processing, community supervision), and (b) the value to crime victims was derived from measures of both tangible (e.g., property damage and loss, health care, lost productivity) and intangible (e.g., pain, suffering, reduced quality of life) losses. Results: Reductions in criminality in the MST vs. IT conditions were associated with lasting benefits to both taxpayers and crime victims, with cumulative benefits of MST estimated at $35,582 per juvenile offender and $7,798 per sibling. Overall, every dollar spent on MST recovered $5.04 in savings to taxpayers and crime victims in the 25 years following treatment. Conclusions: This study represents the most comprehensive cost– benefit analysis of an MST clinical trial to date and demonstrates that an evidence-based treatment such as MST can produce modest economic benefits well into adulthood. Implications of the authors’ findings for policymakers and public service agencies are discussed.
The Economic Impact of Multisystemic Therapy Through Midlife: A Cost– Benefit Analysis With Serious Juvenile Offenders and Their Siblings
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology (in press)
Objective: This study investigated the economic benefits of multisystemic therapy (MST) vs. individual therapy (IT) using arrest data from 176 serious juvenile offenders and 129 of their closest-in-age siblings who participated, on average, 25 years earlier in a randomized clinical trial (Borduin et al., 1995). Method: Two types of benefits of MST were evaluated: (a) The value to taxpayers was derived from measures of criminal justice system expenses (e.g., police and sheriff’s offices, court processing, community supervision), and (b) the value to crime victims was derived from measures of both tangible (e.g., property damage and loss, health care, lost productivity) and intangible (e.g., pain, suffering, reduced quality of life) losses. Results: Reductions in criminality in the MST vs. IT conditions were associated with lasting benefits to both taxpayers and crime victims, with cumulative benefits of MST estimated at $35,582 per juvenile offender and $7,798 per sibling. Overall, every dollar spent on MST recovered $5.04 in savings to taxpayers and crime victims in the 25 years following treatment. Conclusions: This study represents the most comprehensive cost– benefit analysis of an MST clinical trial to date and demonstrates that an evidence-based treatment such as MST can produce modest economic benefits well into adulthood. Implications of the authors’ findings for policymakers and public service agencies are discussed.
Long-term effects of prevention and treatment on youth antisocial behavior: A meta-analysis
Clinical Psychology Review (in press)
Youth antisocial behavior exacts a tremendous toll on society and often persists into adulthood. Although researchers have identified a number of psychosocial interventions that prevent or reduce youth antisocial behavior in the short term, evidence of long-term intervention benefits has only recently become available. In addition, research on such interventions spans two substantial but largely separate bodies of literature: prevention and therapy. The present study used meta-analysis to integrate research on the long-term effects of preventive and therapeutic interventions for youth antisocial behavior and examined potential moderators of these effects. Results from 66 intervention trials (i.e., 34 prevention, 32 therapy) indicated that a broad range of youth psychosocial interventions demonstrated modest effects on antisocial behavior (mean d = 0.31, 95% confidence interval = 0.23 – 0.39) for at least one year beyond the end of interventions relative to control conditions. Among other findings, moderator analyses revealed that inclusion of a peer group intervention component was associated with reduced intervention effects for samples consisting predominantly of boys or older youths. The results of this study have important implications for service providers, administrators, and policymakers involved in the implementation of preventive and therapeutic interventions targeting youth antisocial behavior. Keywords: meta-analysis, prevention, therapy, youth antisocial behavior
