Researcher allegiance in psychotherapy outcome research: an overview of reviews

Researcher allegiance (RA) is widely discussed as a risk of bias in psychotherapy outcome research. The relevance attached to RA bias is related to meta-analyses demonstrating an association of RA with treatment effects. However, recent meta-analyses have yielded mixed results. To provide more clarity on the magnitude and robustness of the RA-outcome association this article reports on a meta-meta-analysis summarizing all available meta-analytic estimates of the RA-outcome association. Random-effects methods were used. Primary study overlap was controlled. Thirty meta-analyses were included. The mean RA-outcome association was r=.262 (p=.002, I(2)=28.98%), corresponding to a moderate effect size. The RA-outcome association was robust across several moderating variables including characteristics of treatment, population, and the type of RA assessment. Allegiance towards the RA bias hypothesis moderated the RA-outcome association. The findings of this meta-meta-analysis suggest that the RA-outcome association is substantial and robust. Implications for psychotherapy outcome research are discussed.

Towards a taxonomy of common factors in psychotherapy-results of an expert survey

BACKGROUND: How change comes about is hotly debated in psychotherapy research. One camp considers 'non-specific' or 'common factors', shared by different therapy approaches, as essential, whereas researchers of the other camp consider specific techniques as the essential ingredients of change. This controversy, however, suffers from unclear terminology and logical inconsistencies. The Taxonomy Project therefore aims at contributing to the definition and conceptualization of common factors of psychotherapy by analyzing their differential associations to standard techniques. METHODS: A review identified 22 common factors discussed in psychotherapy research literature. We conducted a survey, in which 68 psychotherapy experts assessed how common factors are implemented by specific techniques. Using hierarchical linear models, we predicted each common factor by techniques and by experts' age, gender and allegiance to a therapy orientation. RESULTS: Common factors differed largely in their relevance for technique implementation. Patient engagement, Affective experiencing and Therapeutic alliance were judged most relevant. Common factors also differed with respect to how well they could be explained by the set of techniques. We present detailed profiles of all common factors by the (positively or negatively) associated techniques. There were indications of a biased taxonomy not covering the embodiment of psychotherapy (expressed by body-centred techniques such as progressive muscle relaxation, biofeedback training and hypnosis). Likewise, common factors did not adequately represent effective psychodynamic and systemic techniques. CONCLUSION: This taxonomic endeavour is a step towards a clarification of important core constructs of psychotherapy. KEY PRACTITIONER MESSAGE: This article relates standard techniques of psychotherapy (well known to practising therapists) to the change factors/change mechanisms discussed in psychotherapy theory. It gives a short review of the current debate on the mechanisms by which psychotherapy works. We provide detailed profiles of change mechanisms and how they may be generated by practice techniques.

Corrective experiences in psychotherapy: Definitions, processes, consequences, and research directions

After 5 years of conceptualizing, investigating, and writing about corrective experiences (CEs), we (the authors of this chapter) met to talk about what we learned. In this chapter, we summarize our joint understanding of (a) the definition of CEs; (b) the contexts in which CEs occur; (c) client, therapist, and external factors that facilitate CEs; (d) the consequences of CEs; and (e) ideas for future theoretical, clinical, empirical, and training directions. As will become evident, the authors of this chapter, who represent a range of theoretical orientations, reached consensus on some CE-related topics but encountered controversy and lively debate about other topics. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2013 APA, all rights reserved)