Does technique matter? A multilevel meta-analysis on the association between psychotherapeutic techniques and outcome.

Abstract

The extent to which psychotherapeutic techniques have an impact on outcome has been studied on a regular basis. To date, there are no meta-analytic attempts to clarify the association between techniques and outcome in multi-therapeutic approach measures. This study aims to conduct a meta-analysis of the described association. A three-level meta-analysis and moderator-analysis were used. The meta-analysis revealed 13 studies with a total of 177 effect sizes. There was a significant effect r=.193 (t[176]=4.77, p<.01) with higher use of psychotherapeutic techniques being associated with better outcome. Significant moderator was therapeutic approach-specific subscales. The mean effect of cognitive-behavioral techniques was r=.088 (t[147]=1.50, p=.14, d=0.18; s=11, k=79), and the mean effect of psychodynamic techniques was r=.286 (t[147]=5.06, p<.01, d=0.60; s=11, k=70). The measurements for psychotherapeutic technique (Comparative Psychotherapy Process Scale and Psychotherapy-Process Q-Sort) showed no significant difference related to the association between technique and outcome (F[1, 175]=0.38, p=.54). This meta-analysis showed a positive relation between psychotherapeutic techniques and outcome. This leads to the assumption that specific psychotherapeutic techniques have positive effects on post-treatment outcome.