Final Exam prep Flashcards
(155 cards)
Why do we have science in psychotherapy? What questions does it address?
Because therapies that are not science-based can be harmful/dangerous
Addresses:
Whether treatment works
Are all treatments equal?
Is the field taken seriously (e.g., medical community refers to us vs. psychics, etc.)
If no support behind methods, other people (e.g., insurance companies, politicians, celebrities) would decide what treatment to use (based on popularity, low cost, etc.)
Less likely to be sued for malpractice
Directs movement towards more effective treatment, or tells us when we can stop looking (i.e., CBT used for panic disorder treatment)
Allows for therapists who don’t practice scientifically to be excluded, or not chosen as therapists
What are some examples of dangerous non-scientific practices?
E.g., “Rebirthing therapy” which resulted in a death
E.g., “repressed memories” - many patients who have now retracted their claims and know that they were false
What was Hans Eysenck’s 1952 study about? What three groups were compared?
“The Effects of Therapy, an Evaluation”
Reviewed 24 outcome studies 1920 - 1950
Compared three groups:
Psychoanalysis
Mixture of therapy
No therapy
What were the results of Hans Eysenck’s 1952 study?
What did he conclude?
Results:
44% of psychoanalysis group improved
64% of mixed therapy group improved
72% of no-therapy group improved within 2 years of symptom onset
Concluded:
The effects of therapy are small to non-existant
What are some criticisms of Hans Eysenck’s 1952 study? (5)
No randomized control trials (RCTs)
Without radomization, comparison groups weren’t equal on a number of variables (outcomes could have been because of a variety of factors)
The no-therapy group wasn’t a good control because they did receive attention, medical care and treatment, etc. (not a true no-therapy group)
Data about efficacy was “authoritatively proclaimed” or based on successful case histories (not based on good, scientific evidence) - often based on case histories
Relied on records across all patients/settings being kept the same way (assumed) but this is probably not true
What were the Smith, Glass and Miller meta-analyses of 1977 and 1980 comparing?
Combined results of 370 (1977) and 475 (1980) studies
Overal effect sizes of therapy overall and specific therapies
What was the mean effect size of therapy overall in the 1980 Smith, Glass and Miller study?
They found that the average patient is better off than __% of the people who are untreated.
What conclusion can we make from these results?
.85
80%
Clear evidence for a significant effect of therapy
What are non-specific factors of therapy?
E.g., an appointment every week, attention, care, having rituals, expectations of improvement, etc.
Dodo Bird Effect
-who coined it
-what does it suggest?
Luborsky (1975) “Everybody has won, and everybody should win a prize” (allusion to Alice in Wonderland quote)
Suggests that all therapies have the same outcome
What did Rachman & Wilson, 1980, say about the Dodo Bird effect?
If the indiscriminate distribution of prizes argument carried true conviction… we end up with the same advice for everyone – “Regardless of the nature of your problem seek any form of psychotherapy.” This is absurd. We doubt whether even the strongest advocates of the Dodo bird argument dispense this advice.
What findings seem to somewhat support the Dodo bird effect?
Some research has shown effect size differences - does not completely support Dodo bird effect (although effect sizes are somewhat similar between some therapies):
Smith & Glass, 1977:
Cognitive 2.38
CBT 1.13
Client-centered .62
Smith, Glass & Miller, 1980
Cognitive 1.31
CBT 1.24
Humanistic .63
What are the criticisms of the Smith & Glass studies which seem to support the Dodo bird effect?
no randomizations, small samples
Shapiro & Shapiro (1982)
- what were they looking at?
- what were the results?
- what does this suggest?
Researchers started looking at how different treatment types affected specific diagnoses which found that there are large effect size differences in this regard:
Anxiety and depression
Behavioural = .74
Cognitive = 1.34
Psychodynamic/humanistic = .40
Phobia
Behavioural = 1.46
Cognitive = .92
Psychodynamic/Humanistic = analysis not conducted
Findings do not support the Dodo bird effect
Reid (1997)
- what were they looking at?
- what were the results?
- what does this suggest?
42 meta-analyses of treatments for depression, insomnia, smoking cessation, and bulimia
75% of the meta-analyses showed evidence of treatment effects
Behavioural treatments (including CBT) superior to non-behavoural treatments
Findings do not support the Dodo bird effect
Wampold et al., 1997
- what were they looking at?
- what were the results?
- what does this suggest?
- what are some criticisms of this study?
Meta-analysis from studies published between 1970-1995 that compared at least two treatments
Found average effect size of only .19 (small difference between treatments)
Support for the Dodo bird effect
Criticisms: most of the studies they analyzed were based on different forms of CBT, not different orientations of treatments (so likely CBT compared with CBT would have a small effect size)
Siev & Chambless, 2007
- what were they looking at?
- what were the results?
- what does this suggest?
All published studies comparing CBT to relaxation for treatment of GAD and panic disorder
GAD: the two treatments were similar
Panic = CBT > relaxation (much better results for CBT)
Support against the Dodo bird effect:
Based on research evidence, what is our conclusion about the Dodo bird effect?
Sometimes the effect sizes can be small but other times (as in the case of panic disorder) the effect sizes can be significant. Summary: sometimes treatments are equal but in some conditions, treatments are not equal
Evidence-based practice emphasizes first using the intervention that has the greatest support, but if the intervention proves to be unsuccessful with a given patient, turning to treatments with less support is entirely appropriate
What could stand in our way of finding out if treatments work and if there are certain treatments that are better than others?
We tend to generalize (e.g., “It probably always works, or works for everyone”)
Might also bias results based on affiliation with the therapy (my school taught me this therapy so it must work)
What if a therapy DIDN’T work? Would we still see change? What are some of the reasons that we might see change for a person, even if the actual treatment didn’t work?
We may tend to think our therapy is working, based on our experience with the therapy
Passage of time, regression towards the mean (possible that simply passage of time affects change or there is regression towards the mean)
What are Empirically Supported Therapies (EST)?
Clearly specified psychological treatment shown to be efficacious in controlled research with a delineated population
APA task force suggests that good treatments must meet a specific criteria and those that meet the criteria would be labelled ESTs
What are the aspects that need to be addressed in research for it to be EST?
Efficacy
Specificity
Effectiveness
Efficiency
Other important considerations:
-Sample Description
-Treatment manual
-Reliable and valid outcome assessment measures
-Appropriate data analyses
What are the rules set out by Chambless & Hollon (1998) for a study to be considered efficacious for an EST?
Controlled research with Random Assignment - called randomized controlled trials (RCTs)
RCT = patients randomly assigned to the treatment of interest OR to one or more comparison conditions
Efficacious:
When a treatment has been found efficacious in at least 2 studies
And… when a treatment has been found efficacious by independent research teams
Possibly efficacious:
Only 1 study
Or… all research conducted by one team
What is specificity? How are studies designed to test specificity?
If the treatment is found to be superior to conditions that control for nonspecific processes, such as receiving attention for being in a treatment group, or expecting that you will change
The treatment must be successful specifically due to the elements of the treatment itself rather than other factors
Using credible sham placebos or other ESTs as a control group is how to test for and determine specificity - then we know that the change/result from treatment is due to the treatment itself and not due to other factors
What are the differences between the efficacy and the specificity of treatments/therapies?
Efficacy:
Determining if the treatment produces change compared to a control
Specificity:
Determining if the treatment itself produces the change or if other variables are producing change
Efficacy:
Has to be replicated (otherwise only possibly efficacious)
The control could be a wait-list, placebo, or another type of treatment (just has to have a control of some kind)
Specificity:
The control has to be a credible sham placebo or another treatment that has already been proven efficacious