Posted by DaisyM on December 28, 2003, at 22:14:58
In reply to Therapist Orientation? CBT or psychodynamic?, posted by mattdds on December 26, 2003, at 1:52:24
I thought the following was interesting from talkingcure.com:
An Introduction . . .
Since the mid-1960's, the number of therapy models has grown from 60 to more than 250. At the same time, virtually all of the research data finds that the various treatment approaches achieve roughly equivalent results. This is true of both the biological and well as the much bally-hoed cognitive and cognitive behavioral revolutions. When all is said and done, virtually all of the data find that the various approaches work about equally well. As leading outcome researcher Michael J. Lambert, Ph.D. summarizes, "Research carried out with the intent of contrast two or more bona fide treatments shows surprisingly small differences between the outcomes for patients who undergo a treatment that is fully intended to be therapeutic" (p. 158, 1994).
Such evidence makes clear that the differences between the various models--much promoted by the developers and marketers of the different approaches--can not account for the effectiveness of treatment. Rather, the mountain of evidence for equivalent outcomes makes it clear that the similarities rather than differences between models account for the effectiveness of psychotherapy. The question, of course, is what similarities approaches share that account for success?
The Facts . . .
Research points to the existence of four factors common to all forms of therapy despite theoretical orientation (dynamic, cognitive, etc.), mode (individual, group, couples, family, etc.), dosage (frequency and number of sessions), or specialty (problem type, professional discipline, etc.). In order of their relative contribution to change, these elements include: (1) extratherapeutic [40%]; (2) relationship [30%]; (3) placebo, hope, and/or expectancy [15%]; and (4) structure, model, and/or technique ([15%] For more info/references: Escape from Babel (Norton, 1997); The Heart & Soul of Change (APA, 1999).
Research on the four common factors makes clear that various therapeutic techniques (e.g., confrontation, the "miracle question," EMDR) are better viewed as different means of empowering one or more of the factors responsible for treatment outcome rather than unique to a specific treatment model. Incidentally, this ămeta-view of therapy models also happens to fit the way experienced clinicians actually practice. Surveys conducted over the last several decades have consistently found, for example, that clinicians tend to identify less with any one approach the longer they have been in the field. Rather, experienced therapists tend to pick and choose from a variety of approaches in an effort to tailor treatment to the makeup and characteristics of the individual client.
Of course, the challenge to practicing clinicians--owing to the many choices available--is which technique(s) or approach(s) to adopt when working with a particular client? In this regard, research conducted by Duncan, Hubble, & Miller (see Psychotherapy With Impossible Cases [Norton, 1977]; Changing the Rules) as well as others (for a thorough review see Chapter 14, The Heart & Soul of Change [APA, 1999]) shows that the clientâs view of the presenting complaint, potential solutions, and ideas about the change process form a theory of change that can be used as the basis for determining, ăwhich approach, by whom, would be the most effective for this person, with that specific problem, under this particular set of circumstances. This same research shows that the probability for success is greater when the treatment offered fits with or is complementary to the client's theory.
poster:DaisyM
thread:293462
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/psycho/20031221/msgs/294192.html