Blog

Handbook of Psychotherapy and Behavior Change: Starting in March 2013 I will review one chapter a month from the Handbook of Psychotherapy and Behavior Change in addition to reviewing psychotherapy research articles. Book chapters have more restrictive copy right rules than journal articles, so I will not provide author email addresses for these chapters. If you are interested, the Handbook table of content and sections of the book can be read on Google Books.

Baldwin, S. & Imel, Z.E. (2013). Therapist effects. In M.E. Lambert (Ed.), Bergin and Garfield’s Handbook of Psychotherapy and Behavior Change, 6^th Edition (pp. 258-297). New York: Wiley.

Does it matter that some therapists are more effective than others? Can less effective therapists be trained to improve their outcomes and relationship quality with patients?  These are important questions not only for our patients’ well-being but also for the long term survival of psychotherapy as a health enterprise. If we do not measure outcomes and help therapists who are less effective, stakeholders (i.e., clients, families, agencies, insurance companies) may stop paying for the services. In the September 2013 blog I discussed a large study that showed that a few therapists were reliably harmful and some therapists were reliably helpful to their patients. That study also reported that most therapists were effective in 5 of 12 problem domains for which their patients sought help. What these findings and the Handbook chapter by Baldwin and Imel (2013) show is that there are significant between-therapist effects (i.e., therapists differed from each other on patient outcomes) and within-therapist effects (i.e., therapist outcomes within their own caseload differed based on the patients’ problems). Baldwin and Imel (2013) reported on their meta analysis in which between-therapist differences accounted for 5% of the outcome variance. That seems small, but it’s not. One study, for example, estimated that for each 100 patients that would be treated, the worst therapist compared to the best therapist would have 6 more patients who deteriorated. I would prefer my loved ones to be seen by the best therapist, even if the difference between best and worst is only 5%. Nevertheless, 95% of the variance in outcomes is within the therapist’s caseload. That is, the patient, other contextual variables, and the therapist-patient relationship are by far the biggest contributors to outcome. As Baldwin and Imel point out, not only are some therapists are more effective for some patients and not others, but also some therapists are better at developing a therapeutic relationship with some patients than with others. Baldwin and Imel reported that, on average, 9% of the variance in the quality of the therapeutic alliance is associated with the therapist – that’s a clinically meaningful effect.

Practice Implications

As Baldwin and Imel (2013) state, ignoring therapist accountability is detrimental to patients and to the mental health field in general. If stakeholders do not see evidence of positive outcomes, then they will withdraw funding, and patients will have even less access to services. Therapists differ in their outcomes, and outcomes also differ within each therapist’s caseload. If a primary goal is to improve therapist performance and patient outcomes, then therapists need to measure outcomes and therapeutic relationship quality. This knowledge about performance with specific patients can help therapists seek continuing education and training to improve outcomes and therapeutic alliances with specific patients for whom the therapist is less effective. This may require continuous outcome monitoring and real-time feedback to therapists regarding their patients’ outcomes (see my September 2013 blog in identifying clients who might deteriorate).

Handbook of Psychotherapy and Behavior Change: Starting in March 2013 I will review one chapter a month from the Handbook of Psychotherapy and Behavior Change in addition to reviewing psychotherapy research articles. Book chapters have more restrictive copy right rules than journal articles, so I will not provide author email addresses for these chapters. If you are interested, the Handbook table of content and sections of the book can be read on Google Books.

Bohart, A.C. & Wade, A.G. (2013). The client in psychotherapy. In M. Lambert (Ed.) Bergin and Garfield’s handbook of psychotherapy and behavior change (6^th ed.), pp. 219-257. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Last month I blogged about the section in Bohart and Wade’s (2013) chapter that focused on client symptom severity and motivation. This month I focus on differences between clients and therapists on their perceptions of therapy processes and outcomes. In a previous blog (see June 2013), I reviewed a meta analysis that showed that given two equally effective treatments, clients should be given their preference in order to improve outcomes. Clearly, client perceptions and preferences are important, and perhaps more important than the therapist’s perceptions. Bohart and Wade (2013) reviewed a number of studies that demonstrated this. For example, studies show that client ratings of the therapeutic alliance predicted which therapists had better than average outcomes, whereas therapist ratings of the alliance did not predict outcomes.  In three other meta-analyses, client perceptions of therapist genuineness, empathy, and therapeutic presence were each more predictive of outcomes than the respective therapists’ assessments of their own genuineness, empathy, and therapeutic presence. Clients also value different outcomes compared to therapists and researchers. Most research on outcomes tends to focus on symptom reduction, but clients appear to have a broader view of good outcomes. In a qualitative study, clients focused on healthier relationship patterns, an increase in self-understanding that led to freedom from and avoidance of self-destructive behaviour, and stronger valuing of the self, in addition to symptom reduction. Others report that clients define good outcomes as reengaging in meaningful work and social roles, and restoring their self respect.

Practice Implications

Clients are more finely attuned to the therapeutic alliance than therapists, and perhaps are better at detecting relevant and helpful therapist stances. If you are interested in assessing therapeutic alliance or a therapist’s empathy, don’t ask the therapist, ask the client. This has implications for training therapists in helpful therapeutic relationship stances. Helping trainees find areas for continued development as a therapist (i.e., in terms of improving their empathy, genuineness, and therapeutic presence) may require asking their clients’ opinions. Client perceptions of therapist qualities are more relevant than therapist perceptions when assessing effective therapist relationship stances. Therapists should monitor client preferences, particularly if the client is having difficulty engaging in the therapy. If possible and reasonable, therapists should alter their relationship approach to a client based on client feedback. Regarding outcomes, therapists, researchers, and agencies should consider broader definitions of outcomes that are more aligned with what clients want and value. Improved self concept, improved relationships, and better social and work functioning may be just as important as symptom reduction for most clients.

Handbook of Psychotherapy and Behavior Change: Starting in March 2013 I will review one chapter a month from the Handbook of Psychotherapy and Behavior Change in addition to reviewing psychotherapy research articles. Book chapters have more restrictive copy right rules than journal articles, so I will not provide author email addresses for these chapters. If you are interested, the Handbook table of content can be viewed on Amazon.

Bohart, A.C. & Wade, A.G. (2013). The client in psychotherapy. In M. Lambert (Ed.) Bergin and Garfield’s handbook of psychotherapy and behavior change (6^th ed.), pp. 219-257. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Some authors argue that client factors account for 30% of variance in outcomes. That represents a greater association to psychotherapy outcome than therapist effects and therapeutic techniques combined. In this part of the Handbook chapter on client factors, Bohart and Wade discuss client attachment. Bowlby found that attachment relationships were important and were different from other relationships. Attachment figures confer a sense of security and safety to infants that allow children to explore their environment and experience the self. Attachment patterns that develop in childhood tend to be stable throughout the lifespan, but attachment style can change with positive (i.e., psychotherapy, romantic relationships) and negative (i.e., traumatic events) experiences. Attachment security is associated with adaptive affect regulation, positive view of self and others, and reflective functioning that is related to mentalizing. Attachment anxiety is associated with maladaptive up-regulation of emotions, positive view of others but negative view of self, and reduced reflective functioning likely due to preoccupation with relationships and emotion dysregulation. Attachment avoidance is associated with maladaptive down-regulation of emotions, negative view of others and positive view of self (or negative view of others and negative view of self in the case of fearful avoidant attachment), and limited reflective functioning due to dismissing of emotions and relationships. There are also disorganized attachment states related to traumatic events. Those with attachment avoidance tend to be distrustful and less likely to seek psychotherapy. A meta-analysis by Levy and colleagues (2011) of 19 studies including 1467 clients found that attachment security was associated with good psychotherapy outcomes and attachment anxiety was negatively associated with good outcomes. No relationship was found for attachment avoidance and outcomes. Diener and Monroe (2011) conducted a separate meta analysis on attachment and therapeutic alliance which included 17 studies with 886 clients. They found that clients with secure attachments had better alliances with their therapist and those with insecure attachments (anxious or avoidant) had weaker alliances.

Practice Implications

The research is clear that client attachment style influences how clients enter therapy, engage with the therapist, and experience outcomes. Attachment style likely affects specific therapy behaviors like self-disclosure and amount of exploration. In his book Attachment and Psychotherapy, David Wallin (2007) translates attachment theory into a framework for adult psychotherapy by tailoring interventions to specific attachment styles. For example, clients with greater attachment anxiety may do better in psychotherapy when the therapist: helps with down regulation of client emotional experiences, behaves in a way that does not evoke client fears of abandonment or loss, and helps clients improve reflective functioning by encouraging a thoughtful appraisal of their behaviors. On the other hand clients with greater attachment avoidance may require a therapist who: slowly introduces the client to greater attention to emotional experiences, does not demand too much from the client in terms of closeness in therapy at the outset, and encourages reflective functioning by helping the client understand the association between defensive avoidance of affect and relationship problems.

Castonguay, L.G., Boswell, J.F., Zack, S., Baker, S., Boutselis, M., Chiswick, N., Damer, D., Hemmelstein, N., Jackson, J., Morford, M., Ragusea, S., Roper, G., Spayd, C., Weiszer, T., Borkovec, T.D., & Grosse Holtforth,, M. (2010). Helpful and hindering events in psychotherapy: A practice research network study. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, Practice, and Training, 47, 327-344.

There are many reasons why I like this paper, and one reason is that it is a psychotherapy practice research network study (most of the co-authors are independent practice clinicians). This group of clinicians and researchers met on a number of occasions to define the research questions, including: “what do psychotherapists and clients find most and least helpful in a psychotherapy session?”; and “do psychotherapists and clients agree on what was most and least helpful?” The clinicians and researchers also discussed and agreed on the method for collecting and analysing the data. Thirteen independent practice clinicians participated (6 CBT, 4 psychodynamic, and 3 experiental/humanistic). For a period of 18 months, all new clients were invited to participate so that 121 clients with a variety of disorders enrolled in the study. Clients and therapists filled out (on an index card) parts of the Helpful Aspects of Therapy (HAT) measure, which asked them to report, describe, and rate particularly helpful and hindering events from the session they had just completed. For example clients and therapists were asked: “Did anything particularly helpful happen during this session?”; and “Did anything happen during this session which might have been hindering?” When participants answered “Yes” to either of these questions, they were asked to briefly describe the event(s), and then rate them on a scale from 1 to 4 for level of helpfulness or level of hindrance. Both clients and therapists did so at the end of every therapy session. Close to 1500 therapeutic events were recorded by the clients and therapists. The events were then coded and categorized according to type of event by independent raters using an established coding system. Clients rated self-awareness, problem clarification, and problem solution as the most helpful type of events, although self-awareness was significantly the most identified of all helpful events by clients. Therapists rated self-awareness, alliance strengthening, and problem clarification as the most helpful type of events. Therapists identified self-awareness and alliance strengthening significantly more often than any other helpful events. Hindering events were identified much less frequently by clients and therapists. Client identified poor fit (e.g., therapist tried something that didn’t fit the client’s experience) as the most frequent hindering event category. Therapists identified therapist omissions (i.e., failure to provide support or an intervention) as the most frequent hindering event category. Overall, with the exception of self-awareness, therapists and clients did not agree on what were the most helpful or hindering events in therapy.

Practice Implications

Results regarding self awareness indicate that providing clients with opportunities to achieve a clearer sense of their experience (e.g., emotions, behaviors, and perceptions of self) is frequently reported as beneficial by both clients and therapists. The events that therapists most frequently reported as detrimental were those in which they failed to be attuned to their clients’ needs. This may reflect therapists’ concerns with potential alliance ruptures. The overall lack of agreement between therapists and clients on helpful and hindering events raises the question about whether therapists are not aware enough of clients’ experiences, or whether clients are not knowledgeable about what is in fact therapeutic. Perhaps client and therapist ratings of events represent complementary perspectives on what works or does not work in psychotherapy. Regarding participating in research, these independent practice therapists reported that the procedure of writing down helpful and harmful events and reading what their clients wrote after each session had a positive impact on their practice. That is, the process of data collection became immediately relevant to their clinical work.

Author email: lgc3@psu.edu

Horvath, A.O., Fluckiger, C., Del Re, A.C., & Symonds, D. (2011). Alliance in individual psychotherapy. Psychotherapy, 48, 9-16.

The psychotherapy alliance is probably the most researched concept in psychotherapy. A PsychInfo search of terms including the word “alliance” will turn up over 7000 hits. Although the concept of alliance has been around at least since the 1950s, the commonly acceptable pan-theoretical definition that is currently used was proposed by Bordin in the 1970s. This definition emphasizes the conscious aspects of the collaboration between therapist and client, and involves three elements: agreement on goals, agreement on tasks, and the bond between client and therapist. What is important in terms of developing the alliance is the therapist’s ability to step back from his or her own agenda and emphasize, prioritize, and negotiate the collaborative relationship. This allows for the selection of an intervention that is congruent with client expectations, which then will foster a high level of mutuality. Horvath and colleagues conducted a large meta analysis of alliance - outcome research from the years 1991 to 2009 that included 190 independent studies and over 14,000 participants. The overall relationship between alliance and outcome was statistically significant and moderate in size. This was a highly reliable effect. The results were consistent regardless of which measure was used, who rated the alliance (client, therapist, independent rater), or what type of treatment was studied (i.e., CBT, IPT, Psychodynamic, etc). Similar results were found in separate published meta analyses of child and adolescent psychotherapy and of family and couple therapy, though the effect is larger in couple therapy.

Practice Implications

The quality of the alliance is an index of the level of mutual and collaborative commitment to therapy by the therapist and client. Its distinguishing feature is the focus on therapy as a collaborative enterprise. Establishing a good alliance prevents clients from dropping out, and the sense of collaboration creates a context to introduce new ways of addressing the client’s concerns. In the early phases of therapy, tailoring the methods of therapy (tasks) to suit the specific client’s needs, expectations, and capacities is important in building the alliance. Misjudging the client’s experience of the alliance (i.e., believing that it is in good shape when the client does not share this perception) could render therapeutic interventions less effective. Horvath and colleagues suggest active monitoring the clients’ alliance throughout treatment. Therapists’ nondefensive responses to client negativity or hostility are critical for maintaining a good alliance. Research indicates that therapists who are good at building a strong alliance tend to have better alliances with most of their clients. However, the reverse is also true – some therapists consistently struggle to establish and maintain a good alliance with their clients. The strength of the alliance often fluctuates when therapists’ challenge clients to deal with difficult issues, when misunderstandings arise, and when transference occurs and/or is highlighted. Resolution of these normal variations is associated with good treatment outcomes. The next blog entry discusses research on alliance ruptures and repairs.

Author email: horvath@sfu.ca

Safran, J.D., Muran, J.C., & Eubanks-Carter, C. (2011). Repairing alliance ruptures. Psychotherapy, 48, 80-87.

One of the most consistent findings emerging from psychotherapy research is that the quality of the therapeutic alliance predicts outcome across a range of different treatments, and that a weakened alliance is correlated with dropping out of psychotherapy. Jeremy Safran and his colleagues have characterized a “second generation” of alliance research that attempts to clarify the factors leading to the development of the alliance as well as those processes involved in repairing ruptures in the alliance when they occur. A rupture in the therapeutic alliance is defined as a tension or breakdown in the collaborative relationship between patient and therapist. These could include: disagreement on goals of therapy, disagreements on the tasks of therapy, or strains in the patient - therapist bond. Ruptures may vary in intensity from relatively minor tensions, of which one or both of the participants may be only vaguely aware, to major breakdowns in collaboration, understanding, or communication. Similar concepts include: empathic failure, therapeutic impasse, and misunderstanding event. For example, a therapist returned from holidays to a session with a patient with whom she previously had a good alliance. The patient appeared more sullen, and quieter than usual in this session. The patient rated the alliance lower following the session, and the therapist felt the same. In the next session the therapist asked about the change in the patient and explored reasons for the change. It emerged that the patient’s old feelings of loss and abandonment re-surfaced with the therapist’s absence, and the patient felt resentment when the therapist returned. Examining this pattern resolved the rupture and led to continued gains by the patient especially regarding the relational theme of abandonment. In a small meta analysis by Safran and colleagues, 3 studies representing 148 patients were reviewed. The relationship between rupture-repair episodes and treatment outcomes was significant, though modest. In a subsequent meta analysis of 8 studies representing 376 patients, the relationship between an intervention to repair alliance ruptures and positive outcomes was significant and large.

Practice Implications

A therapist’s non-defensive response to a client’s negative feelings about the therapy is critical to repairing a rupture. Safran and colleagues suggest 6 strategies for therapists to deal with alliance ruptures. (1) Repeating the therapeutic rationale can help to repair a strained alliance. (2) Changing tasks or goals can make the therapy and its objectives more meaningful to the patient. (3) Clarifying misunderstandings at a surface level by acknowledging how the patient might feel misunderstood or criticized by the therapist. (4) Exploring relational themes associated with the rupture, could help the therapist and patient understand the patient’s relational themes and reactions. (5) Linking the alliance rupture to common patterns in the patient’s life, as in the example provided above, allows the patient to change the pattern in the therapeutic relationship. (6) Providing a new relational experience such that the therapist’s non-defensive response and willingness to repair the rupture may be a new and positive experience for the patient leading to a better alliance and laying the groundwork for further change.

Author email: safranj@newschool.edu