Blog

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.

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.

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.

The narrative about the relative efficacy of psychotherapies for depression has shifted over the past several decades. In the early days (1970s – 1980s) there appeared to be accumulating evidence that cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) was more efficacious than “other psychotherapies”. However, today one look at the Society for Clinical Psychology list of empirically supported treatments for depression indicates that a variety of interventions are efficacious. In this part of their book, Wampold & Imel examine this change. Early in their book, they defined psychotherapy as: (1) based psychological principles, (2) involving a trained therapist and a client who is seeking help for a mental disorder, (3) intended to be helpful for the client’s complaints, and (4) adapted to the client’s problem. Wampold and Imel argue that many of the treatments compared to CBT in the early days did not meet this definition of psychotherapy. That is, many of the early comparison treatments were not bona-fide therapies; so the comparisons were not expected to be therapeutic. Common comparisons to CBT were “usual care”, “supportive therapy”, and “self directed care” that for the most part did not meet the definition of psychotherapy. Further, the providers of usual care or supportive therapy had no allegiance to the treatment or expectation that the intervention was useful, which eroded the credibility of these interventions for the client. When bona-fide psychotherapies are compared to each other, the effect sizes tend to be small or negligible. For example, Braun and colleagues (2013) conducted a large meta analysis of 53 studies with nearly 4,000 patients.  When they looked specifically at studies of bona fide therapies, and pairs of treatments that were compared in at least 5 studies, there were no differences between the treatments. Similar findings are reported in large a network meta analysis by Barth and colleagues (2013) (198 studies with 15,118 patients) that was summarized in the July 2014 PPRNet Blog.

Practice Implications

Psychotherapies that are based on sound psychological principles, delivered by trained therapists for clients who seek help and that are intended to be helpful for the client’s complaint are likely to be equally effective for depressive disorders. A variety of psychotherapies including, CBT, emotionally-focused therapy, interpersonal psychotherapy, and short-term psychodynamic therapy have demonstrated empirical support for their efficacy in treating depression. Client expectations of receiving benefit and therapist allegiance to treatment enhance the effectiveness of treatments.

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.

Why We Should Care About Allegiance Effects in Psychotherapy Research

Allegiance in psychotherapy refers to the degree to which a researcher or therapist believes that the therapy they are studying or delivering is effective. Clients have an expectation that therapists have an explanation for their disorder and that the therapy used to address that explanation will lead to improvements. On their part, psychotherapists choose a therapeutic approach that is consistent with their understanding of psychological distress. Wampold and Imel argue that therapist allegiance is a common factor across therapies that contributes to good patient outcomes. Although allegiance is an important therapeutic factor, it complicates the conduct of psychotherapy research. In a trial comparing two treatments, for example, researchers and therapists tend to be affiliated with one of the treatments and so they believe in the effectiveness of their treatment. They often do not feel the same way about the comparison treatment, or they may desire that their preferred treatment be more effective than the comparison. In medication trials, this allegiance effect can be controlled by a double blind placebo controlled design in which both therapist and patient are not aware of who is receiving which active medication, or who is receiving a placebo. It is impossible to blind therapists in psychotherapy trials – therapists have to know what treatment they are providing. When doing a meta analytic review of psychotherapy trials, it is possible and relatively easy to identify the allegiance of the researchers in a particular study by looking at their past publications, and by reading what they say about the therapies they are comparing. Often, the developer of a treatment manual is a co-author of the trial. Wampold and Imel review several meta analyses that assess the allegiance effects. In three meta analyses from published in 1980, 1999, and 2013 the correlation between ratings of researcher allegiance and effects of psychotherapy on patient outcomes ranged from moderate to large (r = .26 to r = .85). One interesting meta analysis illustrates the magnitude of this effect. The reviewers looked at 69 studies on self statement monitoring (SSM), a type of cognitive therapy developed by Meichenbaum. The average effect of SSM compared to controls in all studies was d = .53 to d = .74, which is moderate. However, effect sizes found in the studies co-authored by Meichenbaum were nearly twice as large, d = d = 1.23. Being a co-investigator in a study of a therapy that one develops, apparently doubles the effect of the treatment on patient outcomes.

Practice Implications

Therapist allegiance to a treatment is important to the effectiveness of the treatment in that therapist allegiance increases the therapist’s confidence in the treatment’s effectiveness and increases a patient’s expectation of getting better. However, when interpreting psychotherapy trials, especially those that pit one type of therapy against another, it is important to keep in mind the researchers’ allegiance. It is rare to see trials that compare two interventions in which the research team is made of up proponents of the two interventions. However such trials are important and necessary.

Boswell, J.F., Kraus, D.R., Miller, S.D., & Lambert, M.J. (2015). Implementing routine outcome monitoring in clinical practice: Benefits, challenges, and solutions. Psychotherapy Research, 25, 6-19.

Routine outcome monitoring (ROM) refers to: (1) systematically assessing patient outcomes at every session, (2) comparing patient scores and progress to a database of similar patients, (3) using algorithms or decision tools to identify patients who are not improving or deteriorating, (4) providing regular and immediate feedback to therapists about the patient, and (5) in some cases providing clinical decision aids to help therapists improve outcomes for patients who are not improving or who are deteriorating. Boswell and colleagues review the research related to ROM. Generally, about 30% to 50% of patients do not respond to treatment, and 8% of patients tend to get worse during treatment. Therapists tend to overestimate their patients’ improvement, and so therapists may not always identify patients who do not respond or get worse. Therapists may need assessment aids to help them make decisions about patient progress and treatment. Boswell and colleagues point out that ROM have a proven ability to predict treatment failure and other negative outcomes. In a meta analysis of over 6,000 patients, the patients at risk of a negative outcome whose therapist received ROM feedback prior to every session were better off than 70% of at-risk patients whose therapist received no feedback. When therapists are provided feedback and suggestions for interventions, their patients had almost four times higher odds of achieving clinically significant improvement. Boswell and colleagues list a number of barriers that psychotherapists and agencies experience to implementing ROM in their practices. Many therapists are not aware of or have no experience with ROM, and so they may not be aware of its benefits to their practice and patients. Time and money are two practical issues that may arise. This type of assessment is not always reimbursed and the average clinician may feel that they do not have enough time to reflect on routine assessment and feedback so as to reconsider their interventions. Agencies may not understand the value of allocating resources to this type of testing (although medically oriented agencies would not hesitate to order a blood test or an x-ray). Finally, some therapists might experience ROM as intrusive, as impeding the therapeutic relationship, and as a means for an agency to control therapist decisions.

Practice Implications

Routine outcome monitoring (ROM) has clear benefits to patients, therapists, and agencies. To overcome barriers, therapists and agencies could implement ROM as part of routine clinical care, and advertise this as an evidence-based practice that will benefit prospective patients. Clients generally appreciate knowing that they will receive the best possible care. ROM can enhance the therapeutic relationship if it is presented to clients as a collaborative endeavor. For example, if a patient is not improving or is deteriorating, therapists can discuss this with patients as well as a plan to alter aspects of the treatment in order to improve the prospects for a better outcome. Therapists can choose from a number of possible ROM options to best tailor the approach to their clients based on cost, time, and relevance. Currently, there are several outcome monitoring systems available to clinicians including: the Partners for Change Outcome Management System (PCOMS), the Treatment Outcome Package (TOPS), the Clinical Outcomes in Routine Evaluation (CORE), and the Outcome Questionnaire (OQ) system.

Laska, K. M., Gurman, A. S., & Wampold, B. E. (2014). Expanding the lens of evidence-based practice in psychotherapy: A common factors perspective. Psychotherapy, 51(4), 467-481.

In this wide ranging review of the Common Factors (CF) perspective in psychotherapy, Laska and colleagues tackle the complex issues of defining CF and describing the evidence. The authors argue that CF in psychotherapy are not a vague set of ideas that fit under the label of “non-specific factors” or “relationship factors”. They also state that there is an unnecessary dichotomy between the concepts of empirically supported treatments (EST) and CF. In EST, specific and brief manualized therapies for specific disorders are tested in highly controlled randomized trials. ESTs purport that efficacious psychotherapies contain specific techniques based on an articulated theory of the disorder, and a specific mechanism of change for that disorder (e.g., depression is partly caused by depressogenic beliefs and so CBT for depression specifically targets cognitive distortions). There are published lists of ESTs for many disorders. However, Laska and colleagues argue that there is little evidence of the specificity of these treatments. For example, in dismantling studies an intervention like CBT for depression is compared to a dismantled version that removes an “active ingredient” [e.g., by providing only behavioral activation as an intervention], with little difference in patient outcomes between the full and dismantled versions. Further, for a number of disorders, several therapies based on very different theories of the disorder and of change are equally effective. In contrast to the EST approach, Laska and colleagues describe the CF approach which focuses on factors that are necessary and sufficient for patient change across psychotherapies, such as: (1) an emotional bond between client and therapist, (2) a healing setting for therapy, (3) a therapist who provides a theoretically and culturally relevant explanation for emotional distress, (4) an adaptive explanation that is acceptable to clients, and (5) procedures that lead clients to do something that is positive and helpful. Nevertheless, CF does not provide therapists with a license to do whatever they want without considering the evidence of a therapy’s efficacy. Rather CF does encourage therapists to make use of specific factors found in ESTs and to practice with a purpose. In support of the importance of CF, Laska and colleagues review the evidence from a number of meta analyses that show that CF (i.e., alliance, empathy, collaboration, positive regard, genuineness, therapist effects) each account for 5% to 11.5% of patient outcomes. These are moderate effects. Specific ingredients of psychotherapies or differences between ESTs account for 0% to 1% of patient outcomes, which represent small effects.

Practice Implications

An excessive focus or reliance on empirically supported therapies (EST) may unnecessarily limit what the profession and funders consider to be evidence-based practice. A common factors (CF) approach provides scientific evidence for effective therapeutic practices that are necessary in addition to the specific treatments found in lists of ESTs. To be effective, therapists should be able to: (1) develop a therapeutic alliance and repair ruptures to the alliance, (2) provide a safe context for the therapy, (3) be able to communicate sound psychological theory for the client’s distress based on evidence, (4) suggest a course of action that is based on evidence, and (5) conduct therapy based on established theories of distress and healing. Laska and colleagues argue that systematic patient progress monitoring and ongoing monitoring of the therapeutic alliance may be an effective method of quality improvement of therapists’ outcomes. Progress monitoring may provide therapists with information about areas for continuing education to improve their patients’ outcomes.