Sanne T. L. Houben, Anna C. P. Backus, Suzanne Hermans, Harald Merckelbach, Brechje Dandachi-FitzGerald
{"title":"Evaluating the UE-ATR Checklist: Nuanced Attribution in Unsuccessful Therapeutic Outcomes","authors":"Sanne T. L. Houben, Anna C. P. Backus, Suzanne Hermans, Harald Merckelbach, Brechje Dandachi-FitzGerald","doi":"10.1002/cpp.70091","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Unwanted events in psychotherapy can hinder treatment, yet clinicians overlook them and tend to attribute treatment stagnation mainly to patient-related factors. The unwanted events–adverse treatment reaction (UE-ATR) checklist was developed to encourage a more balanced reflection on treatment difficulties, but its effectiveness remains unclear. This study investigated whether the UE-ATR checklist enables clinicians to allocate treatment difficulties in a more nuanced way across various contributing factors. Clinicians and psychology students (<i>N</i> = 104) were randomly assigned to either use the UE-ATR (<i>n</i> = 59) or not (<i>n</i> = 45) while reviewing a case vignette of a patient who experienced unwanted events during therapy and treatment stagnation. They allocated responsibility for suboptimal treatment outcome across five factors: the patient, the therapist, the treatment method, the patient's pathology or other circumstances. Attribution was analysed using the Herfindahl–Hirschman index (HHI), where higher scores indicate a monocausal and lower scores reflect a multicausal view. No significant differences were found between the conditions. Although most users found the checklist clinically useful, this positive perception did not lead to a more balanced perspective on the causes of unwanted events. Although the UE-ATR checklist can support clinical reflection, additional training is necessary to maximize its effectiveness.</p>","PeriodicalId":10460,"journal":{"name":"Clinical psychology & psychotherapy","volume":"32 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/cpp.70091","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical psychology & psychotherapy","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cpp.70091","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Unwanted events in psychotherapy can hinder treatment, yet clinicians overlook them and tend to attribute treatment stagnation mainly to patient-related factors. The unwanted events–adverse treatment reaction (UE-ATR) checklist was developed to encourage a more balanced reflection on treatment difficulties, but its effectiveness remains unclear. This study investigated whether the UE-ATR checklist enables clinicians to allocate treatment difficulties in a more nuanced way across various contributing factors. Clinicians and psychology students (N = 104) were randomly assigned to either use the UE-ATR (n = 59) or not (n = 45) while reviewing a case vignette of a patient who experienced unwanted events during therapy and treatment stagnation. They allocated responsibility for suboptimal treatment outcome across five factors: the patient, the therapist, the treatment method, the patient's pathology or other circumstances. Attribution was analysed using the Herfindahl–Hirschman index (HHI), where higher scores indicate a monocausal and lower scores reflect a multicausal view. No significant differences were found between the conditions. Although most users found the checklist clinically useful, this positive perception did not lead to a more balanced perspective on the causes of unwanted events. Although the UE-ATR checklist can support clinical reflection, additional training is necessary to maximize its effectiveness.
期刊介绍:
Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy aims to keep clinical psychologists and psychotherapists up to date with new developments in their fields. The Journal will provide an integrative impetus both between theory and practice and between different orientations within clinical psychology and psychotherapy. Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy will be a forum in which practitioners can present their wealth of expertise and innovations in order to make these available to a wider audience. Equally, the Journal will contain reports from researchers who want to address a larger clinical audience with clinically relevant issues and clinically valid research.