Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-k7p5g Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-13T15:39:29.955Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

How Useful is Meta-analysis in Evaluating the Effects of Different Psychological Therapies?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 June 2009

G. T. Wilson
G. T. Wilson
Affiliation:
Psychology Department, Rutgers University, Busch Campus, Piscataway, New Jersey 08854, U.S.A.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Shapiro and Shapiro (1982) argue the case that meta-analysis has made, and will increasingly make, an important contribution to the evaluation of the effects of psychological therapies. Briefly stated, they make the following claims for meta-analysis: (1) Meta-analysis provides systematic and quantitative methods for summarizing and integrating the voluminous and diverse literature on psychotherapy. (2) Meta-analysis reduces (eliminates?) the subjective bias that is said to vitiate traditional, qualitative reviews of the literature. Consistent with similar allegations by Smith et al. (1980), Shapiro and Shapiro (1982) suggest that the conclusions drawn in “some” of these traditional reviews “are a function of the assumptions, predispositions and consequent biases of the reviewer.” Meta-analysis, however, is put forward as a distinct alternative to this sorry state of affairs, since it purportedly overcomes these sources of personal and professional bias and results in more objective more accurate evaluations of the evidence. (3) Meta-analysis has “the same superiority over a traditional literature review as that enjoyed by a systematic therapy outcome study over a series of impressionistic case reports.” (4) The advent of objective, quantitative meta-analytic procedures does not abolish the need for traditional literature reviews subjective and qualitative as they might be. The latter have their limited place, just as impressionistic clinical case reports can complement well-controlled experimental outcome studies.

Type
Research Article
Information
Behavioural and Cognitive Psychotherapy , Volume 10 , Issue 3 , July 1982 , pp. 221 - 231
Copyright
Copyright © British Association for Behavioural and Cognitive Psychotherapies 1982

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Agras, W. S. and Berkowitz, R. (1980). Clinical research in behavior therapy: Halfway there? Behavior Therapy 11, 472–487.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Agras, W. S., Kazdin, A. E. and Wilson, G. T. (1979). Behavior Therapy: Towards an Applied Clinical Science. San Francisco, California: Freeman.Google Scholar
Andrews, G. and Harvey, R. (1981). Does psychotherapy benefit neurotic patients? Archives of General Psychiatry 38, 1203–1208.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Baer, D., Wolf, M. and Risley, T. (1968). Some current dimensions applied behavior analysis. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1, 91–97.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Barlow, D. (1980). Behavior therapy: The next decade. Behavior Therapy, 11, 315–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cook, T. D. and Leviton, L. C. (1980). Reviewing the literature: A comparison of traditional methods with meta-analysis. Journal of Personality, 48, 449–472.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kazdin, A. E. (1980). Research Design in Clinical Research. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Kazdin, A. E. and Wilcoxon, L. A. (1976). Systematic desensitization and nonspecific treatment effects: A methodological evaluation. Psychological Bulletin, 83, 729–758.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kazdin, A. E. and Wilson, G. T. (1978). Evaluation of Behavior Therapy: Issues, Evidence and Research Strategies. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Ballinger.Google Scholar
Luborsky, L., Singer, B., and Luborsky, L. (1975). Comparative studies of psychotherapies: Is it true that “everyone has won and all must have prizes”? Archives of General Psychiatry 32, 995–1008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mathews, A., Bancroft, J., Whitehead, A. and Hackmann, A. et al. (1976a). The behavioural treatment of sexual inadequacy: a comparative study. Behaviour Research and Therapy 14, 427–436.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mathews, A., Johnston, D., Lancashire, M. and Munby, M. et al. (1976b). Imaginal flooding and exposure to real phobic situations: Treatment outcome with agoraphobic patients. British Journal of Psychiatry 129, 362–371.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Presly, S. (1978). Overly broad categories abscure important differences between therapies. American Psychiologist, 33, 514–515.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rachman, S. and Wilson, G. T. (1980). The Effects of Psychological Therapy. Oxford: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
Shapiro, D. A. and Shapiro, D. (1980). Meta-analysis of comparative therapy outcome studies: a replication and refinement. Memo No. 438, MRC/SSRC Social and Applied Psychology Unit, The University, Sheffield S10 2TN, England.Google Scholar
Shapiro, D. A. and Shapiro, D. (1982). Meta-analysis of comparative therapy outcome research: A critical appraisal. Behavioural Psychotherapy, 10, 4–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, M. L. and Glass, G. V. (1977). Meta-analysis of psychotherapy outcome studies. American Psychologist, 32, 752–760.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Smith, M. L., Glass, G. V. and Miller, T. (1980). The Benefits of Psychotherapy. Baltimore, Md: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Strube, M. H. and Hartmann, D. P.A critical appraisal of meta-analysis. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, in press.Google Scholar
Strupp, H. H. and Hadley, S. W. (1979). Specific vs. nonspecific factors in psychotherapy. Archives of General Psychiatry, 36, 1125–1136.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wilson, G. T. and Rachman, S.Meta-analysis and the evaluation of psychotherapy outcome: Limitations and liabilities. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, in press.Google Scholar
Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.