Pim Cuijpers, Mirjam Reijnders, Marcus J H Huibers
{"title":"The Role of Common Factors in Psychotherapy Outcomes.","authors":"Pim Cuijpers, Mirjam Reijnders, Marcus J H Huibers","doi":"10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-050718-095424","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Psychotherapies may work through techniques that are specific to each therapy or through factors that all therapies have in common. Proponents of the common factors model often point to meta-analyses of comparative outcome studies that show all therapies have comparable effects. However, not all meta-analyses support the common factors model; the included studies often have several methodological problems; and there are alternative explanations for finding comparable outcomes. To date, research on the working mechanisms and mediators of therapies has always been correlational, and in order to establish that a mediator is indeed a causal factor in the recovery process of a patient, studies must show a temporal relationship between the mediator and an outcome, a dose-response association, evidence that no third variable causes changes in the mediator and the outcome, supportive experimental research, and have a strong theoretical framework. Currently, no common or specific factor meets these criteria and can be considered an empirically validated working mechanism. Therefore, it is still unknown whether therapies work through common or specific factors, or both.</p>","PeriodicalId":50755,"journal":{"name":"Annual Review of Clinical Psychology","volume":"15 ","pages":"207-231"},"PeriodicalIF":17.8000,"publicationDate":"2019-05-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-050718-095424","citationCount":"339","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annual Review of Clinical Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-050718-095424","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2018/12/14 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 339
Abstract
Psychotherapies may work through techniques that are specific to each therapy or through factors that all therapies have in common. Proponents of the common factors model often point to meta-analyses of comparative outcome studies that show all therapies have comparable effects. However, not all meta-analyses support the common factors model; the included studies often have several methodological problems; and there are alternative explanations for finding comparable outcomes. To date, research on the working mechanisms and mediators of therapies has always been correlational, and in order to establish that a mediator is indeed a causal factor in the recovery process of a patient, studies must show a temporal relationship between the mediator and an outcome, a dose-response association, evidence that no third variable causes changes in the mediator and the outcome, supportive experimental research, and have a strong theoretical framework. Currently, no common or specific factor meets these criteria and can be considered an empirically validated working mechanism. Therefore, it is still unknown whether therapies work through common or specific factors, or both.
期刊介绍:
The Annual Review of Clinical Psychology is a publication that has been available since 2005. It offers comprehensive reviews on significant developments in the field of clinical psychology and psychiatry. The journal covers various aspects including research, theory, and the application of psychological principles to address recognized disorders such as schizophrenia, mood, anxiety, childhood, substance use, cognitive, and personality disorders. Additionally, the articles also touch upon broader issues that cut across the field, such as diagnosis, treatment, social policy, and cross-cultural and legal issues.
Recently, the current volume of this journal has transitioned from a gated access model to an open access format through the Annual Reviews' Subscribe to Open program. All articles published in this volume are now available under a Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY), allowing for widespread distribution and use. The journal is also abstracted and indexed in various databases including Scopus, Science Citation Index Expanded, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and Academic Search, among others.