Evidence that therapy works in clincally representative conditions

This article reports a secondary analysis of past therapy outcome meta-analysis. Fifteen meta-analysts provided effect sizes from 56 studies in previous reviews that met 1 of 3 increasingly stringent levels of criteria for clinical representativeness. The effect sizes were synthesized and compared w...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Journal of consulting and clinical psychology 1997-06, Vol.65 (3), p.355-365
Hauptverfasser: Shadish, William R., Matt, Georg E., Navarro, Ana M., Siegle, Greg, Crits-Christoph, Paul, Hazelrigg, Mark D., Jorm, Anthony F., Lyons, Larry C., Nietzel, Michael T., Robinson, Leslie, Prout, H. Thompson, Smith, Mary Lee, Svartberg, Martin, Weiss, Bahr
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:This article reports a secondary analysis of past therapy outcome meta-analysis. Fifteen meta-analysts provided effect sizes from 56 studies in previous reviews that met 1 of 3 increasingly stringent levels of criteria for clinical representativeness. The effect sizes were synthesized and compared with results from the original meta-analyses. Effect sizes from more clinically representative studies are the same size at all 3 criteria levels as in past meta-analyses. Almost no studies exist that meet the most stringent level of criteria. Results are interpreted cautiously because of controversy about what criteria best capture the notion of clinical representativeness, because so few experiments have tested therapy in clinical conditions, and because other models for exploring the generalizability of therapy outcome research to clinical conditions might yield different results. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: journal abstract)
ISSN:0022-006X
1939-2117
DOI:10.1037/0022-006X.65.3.355