Article2008

Effects of psychological therapies in randomized trials and practice‐based studies

Michael Barkham · William B. Stiles · Janice Connell · Elspeth Twigg · Chris Leach · Mike P. Lucock +7 more

68 citations0/0 files storedBritish Journal of Clinical 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 Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes Meta-analysis and systematic reviews

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Randomized trials of the effects of psychological therapies seek internal validity via homogeneous samples and standardized treatment protocols. In contrast, practice-based studies aim for clinical realism and external validity via heterogeneous samples of clients treated under routine practice conditions. We compared indices of treatment effects in these two types of studies. METHOD: Using published transformation formulas, the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI) scores from five randomized trials of depression (N = 477 clients) were transformed into Clinical Outcomes in Routine Evaluation-Outcome Measure (CORE-OM) scores and compared with CORE-OM data collected in four practice-based studies (N = 4,196 clients). Conversely, the practice-based studies' CORE-OM scores were transformed into BDI scores and compared with randomized trial data. RESULTS: Randomized trials showed a modest advantage over practice-based studies in amount of pre-post improvement. This difference was compressed or exaggerated depending on the direction of the transformation but averaged about 12%. There was a similarly sized advantage to randomized trials in rates of reliable and clinically significant improvement (RCSI). The largest difference was yielded by comparisons of effect sizes which suggested an advantage more than twice as large, reflecting narrower pre-treatment distributions in the randomized trials. CONCLUSIONS: Outcomes of completed treatments for depression in randomized trials appeared to be modestly greater than those in routine care settings. The size of the difference may be distorted depending on the method for calculating degree of change. Transforming BDI scores into CORE-OM scores and vice versa may be a preferable alternative to effect sizes for comparisons of studies using these measures.

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 — 68 citations exist upstream.

References

1961An Inventory for Measuring Depression 1988Psychometric properties of the Beck Depression Inventory: Twenty-five years of evaluation 1967Development of a Rating Scale for Primary Depressive Illness 1991Clinical significance: A statistical approach to defining meaningful change in psychotherapy research.1991Clinical significance: A statistical approach to defining meaningful change in psychotherapy research.1978Research Diagnostic Criteria 1987Handbook of Psychotherapy and Behavior Change 1988Handbook of Psychotherapy and Behavior Change

Cited by

2013The variables problem and progress in psychotherapy research.2012Estimating a Preference-Based Index from the Clinical Outcomes in Routine Evaluation–Outcome Measure (CORE-OM)2015Consistency of outcomes of home-based family treatment in The Netherlands as an indicator of effectiveness

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.