[Common factors in psychotherapy as an explanation for results that are approximately indistinguishable--one more myth in psychotherapy research?].
The fact that the gross outcomes of quite different forms of psychotherapy do not differ accordingly has been attributed to the existence of factors communal to any and every form of psychotherapy. For empirical study this thesis has to be dichotomized: (1) Are there really communal factors? (2) Do these engender communal effects in different therapies? Our empirical investigation of client-centered versus psycho-dynamic short psychotherapy shows that (1) is correct, however, the frequencies of these communal element often differ significantly between the two therapy samples. The results and (2) show that in spite of communality the correlation between a certain process category and an outcome variable regularly only attains significance in one but not the other therapy sample--sometimes they even show contrary signs. Hence the initially described explanation seems to be yet another myth in psychotherapy research. This myth assumes (i) interventions to be "monosubstances" (ii) the "doses" of which can be adequately measured in frequency per time unit and (iii) which shows a monotone relation to outcome.
Meyer
A E
AE
Abteilung für Psychosomatik und Psychotherapie, Hamburg.
D000223:Adaptation, Psychological; D005500:Follow-Up Studies; D006801:Humans; D001523:Mental Disorders / Q000628:therapy*; D009629:Person-Centered Psychotherapy / Q000379:methods; D011369:Professional-Patient Relations; D011575:Psychoanalytic Therapy / Q000379:methods; D011614:Psychotherapy, Brief / Q000379:methods*
Kommunale Faktoren in der Psychotherapie als Erklärung für nicht grob unterschiedliche Ergebnisse--Ein Mythos mehr in der Psychotherapieforschung?