Blog

The Great Psychotherapy Debate: Since April, 2015 I review parts of The Great Psychotherapy Debate (Wampold & Imel, 2015) in the PPRNet Blog. This is the second edition of a landmark and sometimes controversial book that surveys the evidence for what makes psychotherapy work. You can view parts of the book in Google Books.

A couple of decades ago Martin Seligman famously said: “Whenever you hear someone demanding a double-blind study of psychotherapy, hold on to your wallet.” In this chapter, Wampold and Imel continue their examination of the Medical Model versus the Contextual Model for psychotherapy by discussing the viability of double-blind placebo control designs in psychotherapy. This topic sounds a little esoteric, but it’s not – this issue reaches into the very core of the definition of psychotherapy. A placebo-controlled trial in medicine often involves comparing a medication that contains an active biochemical ingredient versus a “sugar pill” that is exactly like the medication but without the active biochemical ingredient. Key to the placebo controlled design is that the health care provider, the patient, nor the researcher/evaluator knows which patient received which pill (i.e., the classic “double-blind” design). However, double-blinding is impossible in psychotherapy – the therapist must know what they are providing, which means that they know which treatment is expected to be effective, and which treatment is favoured by the researchers. Further, the researchers know which patients are getting which intervention of study condition. This affects a critical aspect of psychotherapy, that is, the therapist’s ability to provide a good rationale for the disorder and for the efficacious actions of the therapy. Additionally, patients are often aware that they are getting a pseudo-treatment in the placebo, and so their expectation of outcomes is also lowered (actually, this is often true in medical trials as well as most medications have side effects, and the absence of a side effect signals to the patient and the researcher that the patient is receiving the placebo). Wampold and Imel argue that common factors like emotional arousal, an acceptable explanation of the disorder, an understanding and empathic therapist, a structure to the treatment, and therapist and client expectations and hope are integral to the effectiveness of psychological therapies. They further argue that these are the very factors that medical trials try to control with a double-blind placebo controlled trial. Nonetheless placebo-like controls have been tried in psychotherapy to test the active or specific ingredients of a therapy – that is, to isolate the effects of active ingredients from the relationship context of the therapy. Placebo-like controls in psychotherapy have been called: minimal treatment, supportive counselling, non-directive counselling, etc. However, as mentioned, these placebo control conditions often contain elements that are integral to the effectiveness of psychotherapy, like: emotional arousal, an empathic therapist, and client expectations. And so not surprisingly, after reviewing meta-analyses of placebo-like conditions in psychotherapy research, Wampold and Imel conclude that when the studies are well constructed, these placebo-like conditions perform nearly as well as evidence-based treatments.

Practice Implications

What is the take home message for the clinician of this seemingly esoteric topic about research design? Although the placebo-controlled double-blind randomized design is the gold standard in medical research, this design is not possible or even logical for psychotherapy. The relationship, therapist factors, expectations, and contextual factors that one tries to control in a placebo-controlled trial are some of the very ingredients that are active in psychotherapy. The technical and specific ingredients of psychotherapies (e.g., transference interpretations, cognitive restructuring, two-chair techniques, etc.) are also part of the mix; but in the end, one cannot separate contextual relationship factors from techniques when it comes to providing psychotherapy.

The Great Psychotherapy Debate: Since in April, 2015 I review parts of The Great Psychotherapy Debate (Wampold & Imel, 2015) in the PPRNet Blog. This is the second edition of a landmark, and sometimes controversial, book that surveys the evidence for what makes psychotherapy work. You can view parts of the book in Google Books.

Wampold, B.E. & Imel, Z.E. (2015). The great psychotherapy debate: The evidence for what makes psychotherapy work (2^nd edition). New York: Routledge.

In this part of the book, Wampold and Imel discuss the importance of client expectations on psychotherapy outcomes. In particular, they equate client expectations with the placebo effect. In the July, 2015 PPRNet blog, I discussed Wampold and Imel’s distinction between the Contextual Model of psychotherapy and the Medical Model of psychotherapy. One pathway of the Contextual Model indicates that patients who accept an explanation for their disorder and who agree with therapists about therapy interventions, experience expectations that have a powerful impact on patients’ emotions and cognitions. The placebo effect has long been known to improve patients’ response to medical interventions. The placebo effect is defined as the difference between a supposedly inert event or medication and the natural course of the disorder. By contrast, the specific effect of an intervention or medication (e.g., an antidepressant) is defined as the difference between the medication and the placebo (i.e., the effect of a medication over and above the effect of a placebo). In one important meta analysis, the placebo effect accounted for about 68% of the antidepressants’ impact on depression scores. In other words, the placebo effect (i.e., the expectation of receiving help) has a powerful impact on depression. Generating an expectation of improvement (“this pill is an antidepressant that will reduce your depression”) involves: (1) providing a plausible explanation for the disorder (“depression is biochemical imbalance, and this pill [actually an inert placebo] will help”), and (2) having a relationship with an empathic provider. Client expectations of improvement result in mental health outcomes that approach the effects of standard medical treatment for depression. In psychotherapy, creating expectations about the effectiveness of the intervention, providing an explanation of the disorder based on psychological and biological theories, and agreeing on the tasks and goals of therapy are an integral part of the treatment. In other words, the placebo response is part of what makes psychotherapy work, and good therapists capitalize on its effects.

Practice Implications

Patient expectations about the effectiveness of the therapy, their agreement with the therapist on the tasks and goals of therapy, and the therapist’s empathy toward the patient are key aspects that will increase the effectiveness of a therapeutic intervention. The explanation of the disorder and the treatment approach are embedded in psychological theories that typically underpin evidence-based psychotherapies.

The Great Psychotherapy Debate: Since in April, 2015 I review parts of The Great Psychotherapy Debate (Wampold & Imel, 2015) in the PPRNet Blog. This is the second edition of a landmark, and sometimes controversial, book that surveys the evidence for what makes psychotherapy work. You can view parts of the book in Google Books.

Wampold, B.E. & Imel, Z.E. (2015). The great psychotherapy debate: The evidence for what makes psychotherapy work (2^nd edition). New York: Routledge.

In this part of the book, Wampold and Imel reviewed the research literature on the therapeutic alliance. The therapeutic alliance is considered a pan-theoretical construct that is critical to the success of all psychotherapies. Alliance is defined as the: (a) agreement on the goals of therapy, (b) agreement on the tasks of therapy, and (c) the bond between therapist and client. Numerous meta analyses across several decades demonstrate a robust relationship between the alliance and therapy outcome. For example, Horvath and colleagues (2011) conducted a meta analysis with 190 studies that included over 14, 000 clients in which the average effect size was r = .28, indicating a moderate and significant association between alliance and outcomes. Some researchers argued that this is an under-estimation of the alliance outcome relationship. In Horvath and colleagues’ meta analysis, they found no difference between type of psychotherapy (CBT, interpersonal, dynamic) and the alliance – outcome relationship. However, the alliance may work differently in some therapies. For example, in CBT there is some evidence that the collaborative bond is not related to outcomes, but rather the agreement on tasks and goals is related to patient outcomes. This highlights that an alliance cannot happen without techniques; in other words, if techniques fail to engage the patient in the work of therapy, then the technique is not working properly. Wampold and Imel also reviewed the research on whether the therapist or the patient is most influential in developing an alliance. Using sophisticated statistical techniques, they were able to disentangle the effects of therapists and clients. More effective therapists were those who had stronger alliances with patients, and their patients had better outcomes. However, the patient’s contributions to developing an alliance were not significant. Finally, Wampold and Imel reviewed the research on whether early alliance causes good outcomes, or whether early outcomes causes a good alliance. If the latter were true, then the therapeutic alliance would simply be an artifact of early improvement – that is, the alliance would not be necessary for patients to improve. Most of the studies, which were conducted by researchers of different theoretical orientations, concluded that early alliance predicts outcomes and not the other way around. There is some evidence that change in the alliance and change in symptoms have a reciprocal impact – as the alliance grows the patient subsequently improves and as the patient improves the alliance subsequently grows.

Practice Implications

Clearly, developing and maintaining a therapeutic alliance is important to achieving good patient outcomes in psychotherapy. The alliance is not independent from techniques of psychotherapy. In other words, therapists and clients have to agree on the tasks and goals of treatment, and this agreement is fundamental to all treatment modalities offered to patients. If there is no agreement, then therapists have to consider changing course or discussing with the client ways of achieving an agreement. Over and above that, therapists and clients must have some interpersonal bond that is likely underpinned by the therapist’s empathy, positive regard, and concern for the client. The research is clear that it is the therapist who most strongly contributes to the development of an alliance, and so it is the therapist’s responsibility to nurture a positive working alliance.

The Great Psychotherapy Debate: Since in April, 2015 I review parts of The Great Psychotherapy Debate (Wampold & Imel, 2015) in the PPRNet Blog. This is the second edition of a landmark, and sometimes controversial, book that surveys the evidence for what makes psychotherapy work. You can view parts of the book in Google Books.

Wampold, B.E. & Imel, Z.E. (2015). The great psychotherapy debate: The evidence for what makes psychotherapy work (2^nd edition). New York: Routledge.

Some therapists achieve better patient outcomes than others. This seems obvious on the surface and yet few people talk about it, and the research literature seems to downplay or ignore this fact. To illustrate the differing outcomes achieved by therapists, I reviewed a unique study in the September 2013 PPRNet Blog. In that study, 10 cases were randomly selected from 700 therapists (N = 7000 patients), and therapist outcomes were assessed by averaging their patient outcomes. Depending on the presenting problem, as many as 67% of therapists were reliably effective, but as many as 16% were reliably harmful. Clearly therapists differ. Yet psychotherapy research typically treats therapists as if they are uniformly effective. In their chapter, Wampold and Imel review some of the research that estimates the therapist’s effect on outcomes. In other words, what is the impact of the particular therapist on the patient outcomes? Even in studies in which: (a) therapists are selected as experts to provide a specific type of therapy (i.e., CBT, psychodynamic, interpersonal, etc.), (b) therapists are highly trained to be adherent to a manual with repeated supervision, and (c) patients are randomly assigned to treatments, there remains a significant amount of variability in therapist outcomes. Indeed in many studies the therapist effect is as large or larger than the effect of the intervention that is being delivered. In other words, which therapist a patient gets in a treatment study matters just as much or more than what type of therapy they receive. This is also true in medication trials. Better psychiatrists (i.e., those with overall better patient outcomes) who gave a placebo had better patient outcomes than poorer psychiatrists who gave the active medication. A recent large meta analysis found that about 5% of patient outcomes in controlled psychotherapy trials was attributable to the therapist, and the effect is as high as 7% in naturalistic settings. For treatment of PTSD, therapist effects are as high as 12%. On the surface these look like small effects, but in reality they can have a big cumulative impact. Therapists with the best and worst outcomes differ dramatically. For example in one large study, the best performing therapists had a patient response rate of 80% compared to the worst performing therapists who had only 20% of their patients improve. Which therapist would you want a loved one to see?

Practice Implications

Wampold and Imel reported that that therapist effects generally exceed the effects of the specific treatment that is being tested or provided. Some therapists consistently achieve better patient outcomes than others. What are the characteristics and actions of effective therapists? Factors like therapist allegiance to the therapy, empathy, and the ability to form and maintain an alliance with clients appear to differentiate therapists who consistently have good patient outcomes versus those whose patients tend to have poor outcomes.

Angus, L., Watson, J.C., Elliott, R., Schneider, K., & Timulak, L. (2015) Humanistic psychotherapy research 1990–2015: From methodological innovation to evidence-supported treatment outcomes and beyond. Psychotherapy Research, 25, 330-347.

In this wide-ranging review, Angus and colleagues provide an overview of humanistic psychotherapy research from 1990-2015. For this blog I will focus on the efficacy research that they review. Humanistic psychotherapy addresses how people can come to know themselves and each other, and to fulfill their aspirations. This type of therapy emphasizes the personal, interpersonal, and contexts within which clients reflect on their relationships with the self, others, and the world. Carl Rogers is probably the best known early proponent of humanistic client centred psychotherapy. Humanistic psychotherapy focuses on a genuinely empathic therapeutic relationship to promote in-therapy client emotional experiencing, emphasizes meaning-making, and is person-centred. One of the questions raised by Angus and colleagues was: are humanistic psychotherapies efficacious. Here they mainly summarize a previous review by Elliot and colleagues (2013). In a meta analysis of 191 studies and over 14,000 clients, humanistic psychotherapies are associated with large pre to post therapy client change (g = .93) which are maintained over early (< 12 months) and late (> 12 months) follow ups. Further, in 31 studies of over 2,000 clients, those who received humanistic therapies show large gains compared to those who receive no treatment (g = .76). In 100 studies of over 6,000 clients, humanistic therapies had equivalent outcomes to other therapies (g = .01), including CBT (22 studies, g = -.06). Humanistic therapy was most effective for interpersonal/relational trauma, and depression (for which it is considered an evidence supported treatment). There is also good evidence for the efficacy of humanistic therapy for psychotic conditions. However, humanistic therapies may be less effective than CBT for anxiety problems.

Practice Implications

Humanistic psychotherapy that focuses on a genuinely empathic therapeutic relationship that emphasizes client emotional experiencing and meaning-making is efficacious for a number of mental health problems. Rogers argued that non-judgemental acceptance, warmth, and congruence were necessary for good client outcomes, and an accumulating body of research is supporting these early propositions. The evidence for the importance of therapist empathy to improve client outcomes is particularly compelling.

Author email: langus@yorku.ca

The Great Psychotherapy Debate: Since in April, 2015 I review parts of The Great Psychotherapy Debate (Wampold & Imel, 2015) in the PPRNet Blog. This is the second edition of a landmark, and sometimes controversial, book that surveys the evidence for what makes psychotherapy work. You can view parts of the book in Google Books.

In this chapter, Wampold and Imel contrast the Medical Model to a Contextual Model of psychotherapy. The Medical Model argues that there is a biological explanation for a disorder and that the basis for treatment is to address the biological system causing the disorder. Understanding the cause of the disorder (e.g., excess stomach acid) leads to an explanation of the mechanism of the disorder and of change (e.g., reduce stomach acid), which in turn leads to specific interventions (e.g., administer an antacid). Key to this model is specificity: that is, a specific disorder can be explained by a specific mechanism, and a specific treatment based on this explanation will result in alleviation of the disorder. In psychotherapy, for example, one could argue that PTSD symptoms are caused by maladaptive avoidance of traumatic memories, which can be successfully treated by repeated exposure to the traumatic memories to reduce symptoms. Exposure is the specific intervention indicated by the purported mechanism or cause of PTSD. By contrast, Wampold and Imel discuss a Contextual Model of psychotherapy. This model combines the elements of common factors in psychotherapy (e.g., the bond, real relationship, therapeutic alliance) with specific factors of interventions. The Contextual Model indicates that people are fundamentally social animals that require relationships with others to survive and to heal. That is, the initial therapeutic bond between client and therapist is the basis of psychotherapeutic practice. There are three elements to the Contextual Model. (1) The real relationship – which is based on genuineness [openness and honesty] and therapist empathy. Both genuineness and empathy are related to client outcomes. (2) Expectations – which, like the placebo effect, increases one’s readiness to benefit from treatment, is related to greater hope of improvement, and belief in the treatment. The placebo effect is associated with improvements in a pharmacological treatments of depression, and client expectations are related to psychotherapy outcomes. (3) Specific ingredients – as indicated in the Medical Model refers to psychotherapeutic interventions based on a psychological theory of a disorder. But unlike in the Medical Model, the Contextual Model sees the key element of specific ingredients as the agreement between client and therapist on the explanation for the disorder and on the treatment. In other words, a therapeutic alliance in part depends on clients and therapists agreeing on the specific tasks and goals of therapy.

Practice Implications

Patient outcomes are enhanced by a positive therapeutic bond, genuineness and congruence in the way a therapist interacts with a client, and a therapeutic alliance in which clients and therapists agree on tasks and goals of therapy. Typically, these occur within a context in which therapists use some specific techniques of therapy to which he or she feels an allegiance. It is also important that the client agree with the explanation for their disorder provided by this specific treatment model and that the client expects that this treatment will provide them with relief. Although common and specific factors of psychotherapy have been seen as having entirely separate roles in client outcomes, Wampold and Imel argue that within the Contextual Model, they are intimately tied to each other.