Attending to the Omissions: A Historical Examination of Evidence-Based Practice Movements.

Evidence-based practice and empirically supported treatment movements are potent forces that affect the practice of psychology today and have the potential to mandate the types of treatments psychologists conduct. The histories of these movements reveal that certain aspects of therapy valued by psychologists have been ignored. It is shown that the evidence-based movements (a) overemphasize treatments and treatment differences and (b) ignore aspects of psychotherapy that have been shown to be related to outcome, such as variation among psychologists, the relationship, and other common factors. It is important that psychologists understand the development of these movements so that they can be critical consumers of research and can effectively influence the future course of events. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Systematic effects of participant role on evaluation of the psychotherapy session.

This study identified systematic differences between therapists (n?=?114) and patients (n?=?119) in the process components that predict evaluation of psychotherapy sessions. The Comprehensive Scale of Psychotherapy Session Constructs was developed to measure 9 process variables and their relationships to session evaluation from the perspectives of therapist and patient. Regression equations predicting session evaluation from the process components for the 2 groups were significantly different. Therapist session evaluation was best predicted by therapist expertness, and patient session evaluation was best predicted by the therapist real relationship. The therapist real relationship negatively predicted therapist session evaluation when all process variables were considered simultaneously. Patient progress and patient involvement significantly and positively predicted both therapist and patient evaluation. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Benchmarks for psychotherapy efficacy in adult major depression.

This study estimates pretreatment-posttreatment effect size benchmarks for the treatment of major depression in adults that may be useful in evaluating psychotherapy effectiveness in clinical practice. Treatment efficacy benchmarks for major depression were derived for 3 different types of outcome measures: the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (M. A. Hamilton, 1960, 1967), the Beck Depression Inventory (A. T. Beck, 1978; A. T. Beck & R. A. Steer, 1987), and an aggregation of low reactivity-low specificity measures. These benchmarks were further refined for 3 conditions: treatment completers, intent-to-treat samples, and natural history (wait-list) conditions. The study confirmed significant effects of outcome measure reactivity and specificity on the pretreatment-posttreatment effect sizes. The authors provide practical guidance in using these benchmarks to assess treatment effectiveness in clinical settings. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Untangling the alliance-outcome correlation: Exploring the relative importance of therapist and patient variability in the alliance.

Although the therapeutic alliance is a consistent predictor of psychotherapy outcomes, research has not distinguished between the roles of patient and therapist variability in the alliance. Multilevel models were used to explore the relative importance of patient and therapist variability in the alliance as they relate to outcome among 331 patients seen by 80 therapists (therapist average caseload was 4.1). Patients rated both the alliance and outcome and all models adjusted for baseline psychological functioning. The results indicated that therapist variability in the alliance predicted outcome, whereas patient variability in the alliance was unrelated to outcome. Reasons why therapist variability as opposed to patient variability predicted outcome are discussed. Clinical implications include therapists monitoring their contribution to the alliance, clinics providing feedback to therapists about their alliances, and therapists receiving training to develop and maintain strong alliances. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Guest editor's introduction.

The purpose of the "Quantitative Foundations of Counseling Psychology Research" special issue of the Journal of Counseling Psychology is to present a conceptual and, for the most part, nonmathematical presentation of quantitative methods that have potential as research tools in investigations of counseling-related phenomena and to discuss issues related to the use of these methods. My hope is that researchers reading each article will say to themselves, "I never realized how useful this method is, and I think it has tremendous potential to help me answer a research question for which I am having difficulty designing a study." For consumers of research, the articles provide a basis for understanding methods that are likely to be used in counseling psychology research in the future. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Hypothesis validity of clinical research.

Hypothesis validity refers to the extent to which research results reflect theoretically derived predictions about the relations between or among constructs. The role of hypotheses in theory testing is discussed. Four threats to hypothesis validity are presented: (a) inconsequential research hypotheses, (b) ambiguous research hypotheses, (c) noncongruence of research hypotheses and statistical hypotheses, and (d) diffuse statistical hypotheses and tests. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

A meta-analysis of outcome studies comparing bona fide psychotherapies: Empiricially, "all must have prizes."

This meta-analysis tested the Dodo bird conjecture, which states that when psychotherapies intended to be therapeutic are compared, the true differences among all such treatments are 0. Based on comparisons between treatments culled from 6 journals, it was found that the effect sizes were homogeneously distributed about 0, as was expected under the Dodo bird conjecture, and that under the most liberal assumptions, the upper bound of the true effect was about .20. Moreover, the effect sizes (a) were not related positively to publication date, indicating that improving research methods were not detecting effects, and (b) were not related to the similarity of the treatments, indicating that more dissimilar treatments did not produce larger effects, as would be expected if the Dodo bird conjecture was false. The evidence from these analyses supports the conjecture that the efficacy of bona fide treatments are roughly equivalent. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Ethnic minorities' ratings of ethnically similar and European American counselors: A meta-analysis.

A meta-analysis of studies that assessed ethnic minorities' perceptions of and preferences for ethnically similar counselors and European American counselors showed that ethnic minorities tended to prefer ethnically similar counselors over European American counselors. However, the perceptions of and preferences for counselors were influenced by the cultural affiliation of the participants and the research methods used. More precise methods for determining the degree to which ethnic minorities' preferences for ethnically similar counselors is a function of inferences concerning attitudes, values, and skill need to be developed. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2011 APA, all rights reserved)     

An examination of the bases of evidence-based interventions.

Notes that school psychology has proposed a system to aid in the identification of evidence-based interventions (T. R. Kratochwill and K .C. Stoiber, this issue; G. Lewis-Snyder, K. C. Stoiber, and T. R. Kratochwill, this issue; E. S. Shernoff, T. R. Kratochwill, and K. C. Stoiber, this issue; see records 2003-01789-005, 2003-01789-007, and 2003-01789-006). In this commentary, issues related to the politics of exclusion, design and theory, methods, and multiculturalism are discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2011 APA, all rights reserved)     

The practice of science in the family.

Responds to comments by B. D. Forman (see record 1990-29006-001), S. A. Kirschner (see record 1990-29011-001), and M. Rohrbaugh (see record 1990-29019-001) on the present authors' (see record 1990-29009-001) work on the use of paradoxical interventions with couples. Focus is on (1) the subjectivist and objectivist research approach; (2) language, relationship, and content analysis; and (3) the relevancy of science to practice. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)