Blog

Kolden, G.G., Austin, S.A., Wang, C-C., Chang, Y., & Klein, M. (2018). Congurence/genuineness: A meta-analysis. Psychotherapy, 55, 424-433.

More than 60 years ago Carl Rogers first described congruence or genuineness in the psychotherapy relationship as one of the necessary conditions for patients to improve. Congruence has two components. The intrapersonal component refers to mindful genuineness, personal awareness, and authenticity in relationships. The interpersonal component refers to the capacity to express ones’ internal experiences to another person. Rogers argued that patients often experience incongruence with regard to their internal states (they may avoid or fear the experience or expression of what they think or feel). He also stated that therapists’ congruence in the relationship with a patient is a pre-requisite for positive regard and empathy toward the patient. In this meta-analysis, Kolden and colleagues do a systematic review of the relationship between therapist congruence and patient outcomes. The review included 21 studies representing 1,192 patients. The weighted effect size for congruence and psychotherapy outcome was r = .23 (95% CI: .13, .32), representing on average a moderately large effect. Theoretical orientation did not affect the congruence – outcome association. However older therapists with more experience showed a significantly stronger congruence – outcome relationship. Also, therapy with younger patients was associated with a larger congruence – outcome relationship.

Practice Implications

Research continues to support fundamental therapeutic factors defined by Rogers many decades ago. In this case, congruence/genuineness (or the therapist’s ability to know their internal experience and communicate it respectfully to patients) is positively related to patient outcomes. This is especially true for older therapists (who may have a greater capacity for genuineness) and for younger patients – (for whom therapist genuineness may be particularly important). Patients who may have a greater need for and expectation of genuineness are likely to develop a stronger therapeutic alliance with a highly congruent therapist. Patients in a congruent therapeutic relationship learn that it is a safe space, that they matter as a person, and that the therapist is committed and accepting. All of which are precursors to a successful therapy.

Swift, J. K., Callahan, J. L., Cooper, M., & Parkin, S. R. (2018). The impact of accommodating client preference in psychotherapy: A meta‐analysis. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 74(11), 1924-1937.

Here is another in a series of meta analyses looking at client factors that predict psychotherapy outcomes. In 2006 the American Psychological Association defined evidence-based practice in psychology as composed of 3 pillars: (1) the integration of the best available research combined with (2) clinical expertise in the context of (3) client characteristics including client preferences. Client preferences can be grouped into three broad categories. First, activity preferences refer to activities that a client hopes they and their therapists will engage in during treatment. For example, some clients may prefer homework between sessions, or therapists who interpret, or may prefer a type of therapy modality like group, couple, or individual treatment. Second, treatment preferences include client’s wishes for certain types of therapy approach like CBT, psychodynamic, interpersonal psychotherapy, peer-support, or others. Third, therapist preferences include a client’s desire for the type of therapist with which they would like to work. This might include preferences based on demographics, therapist personality, interpersonal style, culture, and so on. Studies that measure the impact of clients receiving their preferences may simply ask clients what they prefer, or might use a questionnaire of preferences. Some research found that clients are willing to give-up up to 40% in the treatment’s efficacy in order to ensure that they worked with a therapist with whom they would have a good relationship. In this meta-analysis, Swift and colleagues reviewed 53 studies that examined the association between client preferences and psychotherapy outcomes. In 28 studies that included data from 3,237 clients, the overall effect of client preference on psychotherapy drop out was statistically significant, such that clients who were not matched or not given a choice of treatment preference were 1.79 times more likely to drop out compared to those who did get their preference (95% CI: 1.44, 2.22; p < .001). In 53 studies of over 16,000 clients, the overall effect of clients receiving their preference on outcomes was also statistically significant (d = 0.28, 95% CI [0.17, 0.38], p < .001). Receiving a preferred treatment or therapist was associated with better client outcomes.

Practice Implications

The results of this body of research suggests that therapists will do well to attempt to accommodate client preferences in psychotherapy, unless they are impractical, or therapeutically or ethically counter-indicated. One can ask clients about their preferences for activities of therapy, therapist style and characteristics, and treatment type.  Some of these decisions may require clients to be educated about their options, and so agencies may consider adopting decision aids. At the very least therapists should initiate a discussion with clients about what the client wants and what they can reasonably expect to receive. These discussions may occur at the beginning of treatment and revisited part way through as well. Therapists may also consider using more structured valid assessments of client preferences to help with this task.

Author email: Joshua.Keith.Swift@gmail.com

Cuijpers, P., Driessen, E., Hollon, S. D., van Oppen, P., Barth, J., & Andersson, G. (2012). The efficacy of non-directive supportive therapy for adult depression: a meta-analysis. Clinical psychology review, 32(4), 280-291.

The research evidence indicates that there is very little difference between different types of psychotherapy (CBT, IPT, PDT, EFT, and others) in patient outcomes, especially for depression. Nondirective supportive treatment (NDST) also shows positive outcomes for various disorders. NDST is often used as a “placebo” condition in psychotherapy trials to control for common or non-specific factors. Common factors refer to those aspects that are common to all therapies, but that are not specific to any one therapy (e.g., therapist interpersonal skills, therapeutic alliance, client expectations). NDST does not involve specific therapeutic interventions like cognitive restructuring, transference interpretations, two-chair techniques, etc. In this meta analysis, Cuijpers and colleagues assessed those randomized controlled trials for depression in which specific treatments (e.g., CBT, PDT, IPT, EFT) or no treatment control conditions were directly compared to NDST. By doing so, the authors were able to estimate how much of patient outcomes were attributable to: specific effects of treatments (the difference between a specific intervention and NDST), common effects of treatment (the difference between NDST and no treatment), and extra-therapeutic factors (the effects of no treatment). The meta analysis included 31 studies with over 2500 patients with depression. Twenty-one comparisons included CBT, and the rest included IPT, PDT, or EFT. NDST was significantly less effective than other specific therapies (e.g., CBT, IPT, PDT, or EFT) at post-treatments g = −0.20 (95% CI: −0.32 to −0.08), but the effect was quite small. The difference between NDST and CBT alone (the most researched treatment type) was not statistically significant. Interestingly, when the authors controlled for researcher allegiance (an indication of which treatment was preferred by the researcher), the superior effects of specific treatments over NDST disappeared. NDST was significantly more effective than no-treatment, and the effect was moderate, g=0.58 (95% CI: 0.45–0.72). Pre- to post-treatment change in symptoms in the control condition was statistically significant, g = 0.39 (95% CI: 0.03–0.74), indicating the positive effects of extra-therapeutic factors on depressive symptoms (e.g., events in the patient’s life not related to therapy). Overall, the authors were able to estimate that almost 50% of patient outcomes could be attributed to common factors (therapist interpersonal skills, therapeutic alliance, client expectations, etc.), about 17% was due to specific therapy techniques (cognitive restructuring, two chair techniques, IPT interventions), and about 33% was due to extra-therapeutic factors (e.g., the natural course of depressive symptoms or other events in the patient’s life).

Practical Implications

Factors like therapist interpersonal skills and managing the therapeutic relationship appear to account for most (50%) of why patients with depression get better. The specific interventions based on therapy models like CBT account for relatively less of patient outcomes (17%). The natural course of the disorder and other events in patients’ lives account for about a third of patient improvement. Therapists can learn how to maximize the effects of common factor skills through deliberate practice and training to identify and repair alliance ruptures to help their patients get better.

Levitt, H.M., Pomerville, A., & Surace, F.I. (2016). A qualitative meta-analysis examining clients’ experiences in psychotherapy: A new agenda. Psychological Bulletin. Online First Publication, April 28, 2016.

Much of psychotherapy research over the past several decades has focused on therapy outcomes, with the general conclusion that outcomes are equivalent across major psychotherapy orientations. Some of the effects of psychotherapy can be explained by relational factors (e.g., therapeutic alliance). There is also a growing and interesting line of research about therapist variables and therapist effects (see this month’s PPRNet blog on differences between therapists’ outcomes in a large UK sample). Many experts argue that client effects and characteristics account for the largest amount of variance in therapy outcomes. That is, who clients are and what experiences they have are the largest determinants of whether psychotherapy will be helpful. However the client’s experience is often neglected in psychotherapy research reviews. Levitt and colleagues conducted a qualitative meta analysis of qualitative studies of clients’ experiences in psychotherapy. Qualitative research typically involves interviewing clients about their experiences in therapy and coding the transcripts of these interviews. Methods of synthesizing and categorizing themes from client narratives, such as the grounded theory method and thematic analysis, create a rich source of understanding about how clients experience change in psychotherapy. Levitt and colleagues applied qualitative methods to synthesize 109 qualitative studies of over 1400 clients as a way of analysing this research. Six clusters or themes emerged from their qualitative meta analysis: (1) clients experienced therapy as a process of identifying and understanding personal patterns; (2) clients who felt understood and had their experiences validated were able to internalize the therapist’s voice; (3) clients experienced the structure of therapy (spacing of sessions and time allotted to sessions) and therapist expertise as generating credibility for the therapy, but also at times the structure reduced clients’ experience of therapeutic relationship’s authenticity; (4) clients experienced an inherent power differential with therapists that was sometimes compounded by differences in race, gender, and class; (5) clients played a major role in the therapeutic process, and clients felt pleased when they were invited to take the lead; (6) clients’ experiences of being cared-for supported their ability to recognize maladaptive patterns and address unmet vulnerable needs.

Practice Implications

This qualitative meta analysis highlights the important role played by the client’s experience and by the therapy context in promoting good outcomes. The results suggested that better outcomes may be achieved when: (1) therapists encourage clients’ curiosity about their cognitive, emotional and relational patterns; (2) therapists engage in an accepting and caring relationship in order to help clients decrease their defensiveness about vulnerable topics; (3) therapists maintain the therapeutic structure in order to increase clients’ sense of confidence in the process; (4) therapists explicitly acknowledge power differences and repair alliance ruptures; (5) therapists encourage clients to take an active role in therapy as a means of self-healing; and (6) therapists regularly check with clients about the fit of interventions, in-session needs, and treatment goals.

Schottke, H., Fluckiger, C., Goldberg, S.B., Eversmann, & Lange, J. (2016). Predicting psychotherapy outcome based on therapist interpersonal skills: A five-year longitudinal study of a therapist assessment protocol. Psychotherapy Research, DOI: 0.1080/10503307.2015.1125546

Therapist effects, or differences between therapists, account for an important amount of patient outcomes (i.e., 5% to 7%). Two therapist characteristics most consistently proposed as predictors of patient outcomes are: therapist competence/adherence to a treatment manual, and therapist interpersonal skills. A recent meta analysis found that therapist adherence or competence were not significantly related to patient outcomes. However, there has been very little research on therapists’ interpersonal capacities. These capacities might include factors like: empathy, warmth, ability to respond well to patient hostility, sensitivity to interpersonal process in therapy, and ability to address alliance ruptures. In this paper, Schottke and colleagues (2016) conducted a five year study with 41 therapists and 264 patients in which they assessed the impact of therapist interpersonal skills on patient outcomes. The therapists were all post-graduate trainees and who practiced a manual oriented cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) or psychodynamic therapy (PDT). The patients were adults mainly treated for depression, and many had co-morbid problems. What was unique about the study is that the therapist interpersonal skill was rated before they received formal training, and the rating were done by trained reliable judges. The judges rated the therapist trainees on interpersonal skills including: clear and positive communication, empathy, warmth, managing criticism, and willingness to cooperate. Patients were assessed pre- and post-treatment on general symptom outcomes. Higher therapist interpersonal skills were reliably associated with better patient outcomes, even after controlling for symptoms severity and number of comorbid diagnoses. In this study, therapist interpersonal capacities measured before receiving formal training and supervision was a significant predictor of patient outcomes after training was initiated.

Practice Implications

The findings of this study indicate that therapists’ talent should in part be characterized by interpersonal competencies that include clear communication, empathy, respectful management of criticism, warmth, and willingness to cooperate. It could be that therapist trainees with high interpersonal skills engage in an extensive degree of deliberate practice that may account for better patient outcomes.

Owen, J., Drinane, J. M., Idigo, K. C., & Valentine, J. C. (2015). Psychotherapist effects in meta-analyses: How accurate are treatment effects? Psychotherapy, 52(3), 321-328.

One of the ongoing debates in the psychotherapy research literature has to do with the relative efficacy of psychotherapies. Is psychotherapy brand A (CBT, for example) more effective than psychotherapy brand B (psychodynamic therapy, for example)? The most common way to test this question is with randomized controlled trials (RCTs), in which clients are randomly assigned to treatment condition (brand A or B). This study design controls for systematic bias in the results that may be caused by differences between clients. But what about therapists? We know for example that therapist effects (i.e., differences between therapists) account for approximately 5% to 10% of client outcomes. Therapist effects are often larger than the effect of the empirically supported treatment that is being offered. Yet it is almost unheard of for therapists to be randomized to treatments, so therapist effects are not controlled in most psychotherapy trials. As a result the effects of the differences between therapists get statistically rolled into the treatment effects. As Owen and colleagues point out, the impact of not controlling for therapist effects is that some differences between treatments in an RCT will appear statistically significant when in fact they are not. One can control for the effect of therapist differences, thus providing a more accurate estimate of treatment effects, but this is rarely done in published RCTs. So, when these RCTs are summarized in a meta analysis, the meta analysis results are also affected by ignoring therapist effects. In their study, Owen colleagues did something very clever. They took data from 17 recent meta analyses of RCTs that found differences between two interventions. These included meta analyses of studies comparing: CBT vs alternative treatments, bona fide treatments vs non-bona fide treatments, culturally adapted treatments vs those that were not adapted, etc. There are many other meta analyses that show no differences between treatments, but the authors wanted to focus specifically on the 17 that did show differences. Owen and colleagues statistically estimated what would happen to the original study findings of significant differences between treatments if therapist effects on patient outcomes were controlled. They controlled for three different sizes of therapist effects that accounted for: 5% (small), 10% (medium), or 20% (large) of patient outcomes. Even small therapist effects (5%) reduced the number of significant differences between treatments from 100% to 80%. When psychotherapist effects were estimated to be medium (10% - which is the best estimate based on research), the number of significant differences between treatments dropped to 65%. For large therapist effects (20%), the number of significant treatment differences was only 35%.

Practice Implications

I have argued previously that the psychotherapist matters. Placing more time and effort in developing good reflective practice based on quality information and developing therapist skills like empathy, progress monitoring, and identifying and repairing alliance ruptures will result in better patient outcomes. As Owen and colleagues note, when reading an RCT that claims to find significant differences between psychotherapies, ask yourself if they took into account the effects of differences between therapists.