"Psychotherapy outcome research": Reply.

Replies to M. J. Lambert's (1979) criticism of H. J. Eysenck's (1978) critique of a study of psychotherapy outcome by M. L. Smith et al (see record 1978-10341-001), defending Eysenck's estimate of spontaneous remission. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Psychotherapy outcome research.

Critiques H. J. Eysenck's (1978) criticism of M. L. Smith and G. V. Glass's (see record 1978-10333-001) meta-analysis of psychotherapy outcome studies. Eysenck's insistance on a position regarding spontaneous remission is examined. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Another reply to Eysenck.

The present article disputes Eysenck's attempt to show that the results of the 1971 survey of Luborsky, Chandler, Auerbach, Cohen, and Bachrach (see record 1971-10064-001) "may be simply artifacts." Basic disagreements are pointed out, particularly with Eysenck's reliance upon "spontaneous remission" rates, and his neglect of controlled psychotherapy studies, and of the evidence that not only patient factors but also therapist and treatment factors have an impact on the outcome. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

A transvaluation of psychotherapy: a reply to Hans Eysenck.

In an attempt to answer Eysenck's contention that "the figures fail to support the hypothesis that psychotherapy facilitates recovery from neurotic disorder," the author re-examines three vital questions: What is psychoneurosis? What is psychotherapy? and What is improvement or recovery? (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Death knell for psychotherapy?

Reviews criticisms of M. L. Smith and G. V. Glass's (see record 1978-10341-001) meta-analysis of psychotherapy outcome studies, including the comments of H. J. Eysenck (1978), P. S. Gallo (1978), and S. Presby (1978). Smith and Glass's data tend to negate the claimed benefits of psychotherapy, as well as the value of educational and experiential achievement in the field. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

"The variance accounted for in meta-analysis of psychotherapy outcomes": A reply to Willson.

Replies to V. L. Willson's (1980) criticism of P. S. Gallo (1978) for miscalculating the strength of the effect of psychotherapy as originally reported by M. L. Smith and G. V. Glass (see record 1978-10341-001) and misinterpreting the results of Smith and Glass's study. Willson fails to provide any calculations or data to support his contentions. The original calculations that were employed are presented, and Willson's figures are shown to be incorrect. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Meta-analysis: A mixed meta-phor?

The conclusions of M. L. Smith and G. V. Glass (see record 1978-10341-001) regarding (1) the proven beneficial effects of psychotherapy and (2) the negligible difference in the effects produced by different therapy types are dismissed on methodological grounds. In a cost-efficiency analysis of psychotherapy, it is impossible to determine whether psychotherapy is worth the effort and expense since there are no data on alternative courses of action. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Reply to Kurosawa.

Defends the 1st 2 authors' (see record 1982-30838-001) reanalysis of the M. L. Smith and G. V. Glass (see record 1978-10341-001) psychotherapy outcome study and responds to criticism by K. Kurosawa (see record 1984-24820-001) regarding their conclusion that there is convincing evidence for the efficacy of psychotherapy. (3 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Psychotherapy outcome research: An application of a new method for evaluating research methodology.

Reviewed 142 psychotherapy outcome studies published in 21 journals between 1978 and 1985, focusing primarily on psychotherapy as a treatment of emotional problems, but including articles regarding the use of psychotherapy as a treatment for other problems (e.g, marital discord). Of concern was whether the methodological rigor of published psychotherapy outcome studies had improved since 1978: Results fail to indicate significant overall improvement or deterioration. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

An exercise in mega-silliness.

Disputes the methodology and conclusions of M. L. Smith and G. V. Glass (see record 1978-10341-001) in their meta-analysis of psychotherapy outcome studies. Smith and Glass's use of a compilation of studies, mostly of poor design, is an abandonment of scholarship. There remains no acceptable evidence for the efficacy of psychotherapy. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Will the real factor of extraversion-introversion please stand up? A reply to Eysenck.

H. J. Eysenck (see record 1978-01109-001) insisted that his Extraversion (E) factor is a 2nd-order variable, resting on 2 1st-order factors; S (Sociability) and R (Rhathymia, or impulsiveness as opposed to seriousness and self-restraint). Evidence is presented in this reply for the independence of S and R, as shown when proper measurement scales are used. Evidence is also provided for the affiliation of R with Factor T (Thoughtfulness), which serves as the basis for a different 2nd-order factor that has a better claim to the label of Extraversion. Eysenck's own factor-analytic results fail to support his claimed 2nd-order factor. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

"Ideology run wild": Reply.

Replies to H. J. Eysenck's comment (1976) that takes exception to the author's views (see record 1976-04475-001) concerning the possibility of a sociology of psychological knowledge. The author stresses that psychological theory and knowledge are partly conditioned by social forces, a position that does not entail a commitment to the idea as an exclusive cause. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Meta-analysis and selective publication bias.

Disagrees with J. T. Landman and R. M. Dawes (see record 1982-30838-001), who support M. L. Smith and G. V. Glass's (see record 1978-10341-001) conclusion that there is convincing evidence for the efficacy of psychotherapy. It is suggested that since it is possible that one-fourth to one-half of the mean effect size reported by Smith and Glass might have been due to selective reporting, it is wrong and misleading to continue claiming that the patient in psychotherapy is better off than 75% of untreated controls. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

A perspective on the history of process and outcome research in counseling psychology.

Traces the development of process and outcome research from before the foundation of counseling psychology in 1946 to the present time. First, theoretical contributions are focused on, with particular attention to the influence of C. Rogers's theory, behavior theory, psychoanalytic theory, systems theory, interpersonal theory, and social influence theory. Next, H. J. Eysenck's challenge to the efficacy of psychotherapy; the uniformity myth that process and outcome are similar across diverse clients, therapists, and contexts; and changes in research methods over the years are covered. The article concludes with recommendations for future research. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Reply to Orwin and Cordray.

The authors reply to criticisms by R. G. Orwin and D. S. Cordray (see record 1984-24829-001) concerning their reanalysis of the M. L. Smith and G. V. Glass (see record 1978-10341-001) psychotherapy outcome study. The authors defend their analysis and reject Orwin and Cordray's assertion that they overstated the case for psychotherapeutic effectiveness. (6 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Studying the effectiveness of psychotherapy: How well can clinical trials do the job?

Although there has been much discussion of the recent Consumer Reports (CR) study (1995) on the effectiveness of psychotherapy, there is little new information reported either in the CR article or in M. E. P. Seligman's (1995) discussion of the findings. The findings that are new are hard to interpret because of serious methodological problems. In fact, the CR study is similar in many ways to H. J. Eysenck's (1952) controversial report on the effectiveness of psychotherapy, a study that has been rejected by the field despite the fact that it avoided some of the methodological shortcomings of the CR study. It would be a mistake to put forth a design rejected in the 1950s as an exemplar of good effectiveness research, especially when better alternatives exist. Clinical trials, despite many limitations, can answer all of the questions posed by M. E. P. Seligman, without the interpretive ambiguities and other methodological problems inherent in surveys such as the one published in CR . (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

"Some comments on the relation between A-B status of behavior therapists and success treatment": James and Foreman reply.

Replies to H. J. Eysenck's commentary (see record 1975-11786-001) on the original article by L. E. James and M. E. Foreman (see record 197407703-001) regarding the relation between A-B status of behavior therapists and success of treatment. In his commentary, Eysenck argued that several weaknesses in the original study do not support the conclusion that the A-B therapist variable is associated with outcomes of behavior therapy. In this reply, James and Foreman defend their conclusions. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Psychotherapy outcome: Smith and Glass' conclusions stand up under scrutiny.

Selected a sample of the original set of psychotherapy outcome studies analyzed by M. L. Smith and G. V. Glass (see record 1978-10341-001) for reanalysis to address criticisms of the methodological quality of the studies in the original sample. Results uphold the positive conclusions regarding psychotherapeutic efficacy originally drawn by Smith and Glass. (37 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Overly broad categories obscure important differences between therapies.

Comments on M. L. Smith and G. V. Glass's (see record 1978-10341-001) meta-analysis of psychotherapy outcome, noting that distortions emerge when the types of therapy under study are organized into 2 "superclasses" of behavioral and nonbehavioral therapies. These groupings ignore important differences among the nonbehavioral therapies, for example, the superior effects of rational-emotive therapy. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

On the real dollar value of CHAMPUS.

In response to H. D?rken's (see record 1978-12820-001) article on the costs of the Civilian Health and Medical Program of the Uniformed Services (CHAMPUS), it is argued that the real cost-effectiveness of CHAMPUS-supported psychotherapy can be found in the professional functioning of the military personnel and their families. Examples are cited of the beneficial effects of psychotherapeutic intervention with military pilots who stated that family or emotional problems were affecting their ability to pilot. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)