Recent reviews of the group psychotherapy literature indicate that group is a beneficial and cost-effective treatment format. However, collective findings on the differential efficacy of group when compared with individual therapy remain problematic, incomplete, or controversial. To remedy this problem, the authors conducted a meta-analysis of 23 outcome studies that directly compared the effectiveness of the individual and group therapy formats when they were used within the same study. Results were consistent with previous reports that indicated no difference in outcome between the group and individual formats. This finding generally held true when client, therapist, methodology, treatment, and group variables were examined for possible relationship with effect sizes comparing group and individual therapy. Results bolster past findings that group therapy can be used as an efficacious cost-effective alternative to individual therapy under many different conditions.The efficacy of group treatment is well established, and narrative reviews of this modality indicate that it reliably exceeds gains made by minimal treatment and wait-list control groups (

Utilizing 56 outcome studies published between 1974 and 1997, this meta-analysis specifically examines the effect of group treatment with children and adolescents (ages 4-18). Various types of group treatment were assessed, including preventative programs, psychotherapy, counseling, guidance, and training groups. Results indicate that group treatment was significantly more effective for children than wait-list and placebo control groups (effect size = .61). That is, the average child or adolescent treated by group treatment is better off than 73% of those in control groups. This meta-analysis strengthens and supports conclusions in the current literature and challenges others regarding the treatment of children and adolescents by group treatment. For instance, allegiance of the experimenter, setting of the therapy, socioeconomic status of the patient, and publication year of the study were variables that were significantly related to improvement, whereas diagnosis, content and source of the outcome measure were unrelated to improvement.

The so-called age of accountability has been thrust upon psychotherapists by rising healthcare costs and the consequent growth of managed care. Accordingly, tracking psychotherapy outcomes is becoming a requirement for most practitioners. We suggest there is reason for optimism in accepting and employing treatment outcome measurement as an integral part of clinical practice. This article describes the construction and psychometric characteristics of two measures of treatment outcome. It then illustrates the potential applications of outcome assessment from two perspectives, managed care administrators and clinicians. The total cost of health care in the United States in 1991 was estimated to be $800 billion {Health Care Financial Administrative, 1992) and growing at a rate exceeding inflation by more than 4% (Survey of Current Business, 1992). A more alarming statistic is that mental health costs inThe authors wish to thank Richard Ferre, M.D., and Mark Latkowski, Ph.D. of Intermountain Health Care and Human Affairs International for their support and cooperation in the construction of the instruments.Correspondence regarding this article should be addressed to M.

No abstract

No abstract