Is the allegiance effect an epiphenomenon of true efficacy differences between treatments? A meta-analysis.

Thomas Münder · Christoph Flückiger · Heike Gerger · Bruce E. Wampold · Jürgen Barth

79 citations0/0 files storedJournal of Counseling Psychology

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Psychotherapy Techniques and Applications Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Research Meta-analysis and systematic reviews

Abstract

Many meta-analyses of comparative outcome studies found a substantial association of researcher allegiance (RA) and relative treatment effects. Therefore, RA is regarded as a biasing factor in comparative outcome research (RA bias hypothesis). However, the RA bias hypothesis has been criticized as causality might be reversed. That is, RA might be a reflection of true efficacy differences between treatments (true efficacy hypothesis). Consequently, the RA-outcome association would not be indicative of bias but an epiphenomenon of true efficacy differences. This meta-analysis tested the validity of the true efficacy hypothesis. This was done by controlling the RA-outcome association for true efficacy differences by restricting analysis to direct comparisons of treatments with equivalent efficacy. We included direct comparisons of different versions of trauma-focused therapy (TFT) in the treatment of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). RA was measured from the research reports. Relative effect sizes for symptoms of PTSD were calculated. Random effects meta-regression was conducted. Twenty-nine comparisons of TFTs from 20 studies were identified. Initial heterogeneity among relative effect sizes was low. RA was a significant predictor of outcome and explained 12% of the variance in outcomes. The true efficacy hypothesis predicted the RA-outcome association to be zero; however, a substantial association was found. Thus, this study does not support the true efficacy hypothesis. Given findings from psychotherapy research and other fields that support a biasing influence of researcher preferences, RA should be regarded as a causal factor and conceptualized as a threat to the validity of conclusions from comparative outcome studies.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 79 citations exist upstream.

References

2003Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses 1986Meta-analysis in clinical trials 2000Practical Meta-Analysis 1979Impact of Event Scale: A Measure of Subjective Stress 1995The development of a Clinician-Administered PTSD Scale 1984Essentials of Behavioral Research: Methods and Data Analysis 2005A Multidimensional Meta-Analysis of Psychotherapy for PTSD 1975Comparative Studies of Psychotherapies

Cited by

2016The relative efficacy of bona fide psychotherapies for post-traumatic stress disorder: a meta-analytical evaluation of randomized controlled trials 2021Comparative Efficacy and Acceptability of Psychotherapies for Self-harm and Suicidal Behavior Among Children and Adolescents 2015The Gap Between Couple Therapy Research Efficacy and Practice Effectiveness 2019Researcher allegiance in research on psychosocial interventions: meta-research study protocol and pilot study 2017Investigator bias and the PACE trial

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.