Time to let go of the illusion that psychotherapy extends the survival of cancer patients: Reply to Kraemer, Kuchler, and Spiegel (2009).

Replies to comments from Kraemer, Kuchler, and Spiegel (see record 2009-02580-001) on the authors original article Psychotherapy and survival in cancer: The conflict between hope and evidence (see record 2007-06095-001). The authors recently reviewed evidence related to the notion that psychotherapy extends survival in cancer patients (J. C. Coyne, M. Stefanek, & S. C. Palmer, 2007). The authors found that no study to date, including several designed and powered to test this hypothesis, can be reasonably interpreted as evidence that cancer patients live longer as a result of receiving psychotherapy. The authors concluded that the evidence against psychotherapy as a life-prolonging intervention in cancer is sufficiently robust to discontinue funding studies in this area. H. C. Kraemer, T. Kuchler, and D. Spiegel (2009) critiqued the authors' review. The authors respond directly to numerous misrepresentations made by Kraemer et al. More importantly, the authors provide readers with an accurate overview of the main issues being debated and the reasons for their conclusions. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Psychotherapy and survival in cancer: The conflict between hope and evidence.

Despite contradictory findings, the belief that psychotherapy promotes survival in people who have been diagnosed with cancer has persisted since the seminal study by D. Spiegel, J. R. Bloom, H. C. Kramer, and E. Gottheil (1989). The current authors provide a systematic critical review of the relevant literature. In doing so, they introduce some considerations in the design, interpretation of results, and reporting of clinical trials that have not been sufficiently appreciated in the behavioral sciences. They note endemic problems in this literature. No randomized clinical trial designed with survival as a primary endpoint and in which psychotherapy was not confounded with medical care has yielded a positive effect. Among the implications of the review is that an adequately powered study examining effects of psychotherapy on survival after a diagnosis of cancer would require resources that are not justified by the strength of the available evidence. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Determining the pertinence of psychotherapy outcome research findings for clinical practice: Comment on Westen and Morrison (2001).

D. Westen and K. Morrison's (2001) article (see record 2001-05666-001) is a challenge to advocates of empirically supported therapies (ESTs) and to the research enterprise that has determined which therapies are given the EST designation. Their concern that the long-term effects of ESTs are understudied and, apparently, weak is valid. However, their pessimistic conclusions about the generalizability of the results from outcome studies of ESTs are based on a serious logical error. The authors of the present article described an alternative research method that can address important and appropriate questions about the generalizability of ESTs. Continued dialogue between proponents and opponents of contemporary trends in psychotherapy outcome research is encouraged. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Using research to determine the efficacy and modes of treatment in university counseling centers: Comment on Jobes, Jacoby, Cimbolic, and Hustead (1997) and Hayes (1997).

The articles by D. A. Jobes, A. M. Jacoby, P. Cimbolic, and L. A. T. Hustead (1997) and J. A. Hayes (1997) in the Special Section on Research in Counseling Centers are reviewed in the context of changes in college and university counseling centers. D. A. Jobes et al.'s study dealt with the development and application of the Suicide Status Form; J. A. Hayes's study reported the results of a factor analysis of the Brief Symptom Inventory that used data gathered specifically from college students. Suggestions are offered as to how the results of these studies might be applied to current counseling center work. A greater role for research in counseling centers is argued for, and examples of how research might abet counseling center personnel in their attempts to be both efficient and efficacious are offered. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

(Part of) the case for a pragmatic approach to validity: Comment on De Houwer, Teige-Mocigemba, Spruyt, and Moors (2009).

In their review of validity of the Implicit Association Test and affective priming, J. De Houwer, S. Teige-Mocigemba, A. Spruyt, and A. Moors (see record 2009-05290-001) identified validity with establishment of “basic theoretical understanding” of the measures. It is agreed that theoretical understanding has an important role in making measures more valid and useful. Nevertheless, the authors conclude that scientific advancement will more often be well served by prioritizing pragmatic goals of establishing the predictive validity of the measures and their adequate sensitivity to individual differences. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)