A controlled study of quantitative feedback in married-couples brief group psychotherapy.

Abstract

The present study investigated the impact of delayed, written feedback upon the process and outcome of brief group psychotherapy for married couples. A two-group, two-stage design was employed. Prior to the therapy stage, each group participated in a four session, placebo stage. Subsequently, the control group received couple-group therapy. At the same time, members of the experimental group participated in equivalent therapy and received written feedback consisting of self, peer, and therapist ratings on variables selected from a Post Session Questionnaire. Generally, results supported the hypotheses: Feedback variables showed more significant changes in expected directions than did the nonfeedback variables; therapy plus feedback, in contrast to therapy alone, led to the assessment of greater behavioral change; therapy plus feedback was a more effective tool than therapy alone for increasing the degree of congruence between self and peer ratings, and between self and therapist ratings; members of the experimental group perceived con-1 This investigation is part of a research project conducted at the Mental Health Study Center, NIMH, Adelphi, Maryland. This study also represents work completed in partial fulfillment of the Ph.D. degree in Human Development at the University of Maryland by the first author under the guidance of thesis and research advisors. Special thanks are due to Donald S. Rae for computer programming and to Cathy D. Sigman, Karen M. Sheehan, and Teresa J. Bowers for preparing the manuscript. Tables showing mean values ± standard deviations for all Post Session Questionnaire variables are available.

Feedback from Outcome Measures and Treatment Effectiveness, Treatment Efficiency, and Collaborative Practice: A Systematic Review

“…Finally, 18 (56 %) studies reported other potential sources of bias, where the most common reason ( n = 14, 44 %) was a small sample size (Ashaye et al 2003 ; Copeland 2007 ; Galvinhill 2001 ; Lester, 2012 ; Murphy et al 2012 ; Probst et al 2013 ; Reese et al 2009a , b ; Rise et al 2012 ; Schmidt et al 2006 ; Simon et al 2013 ; Soeken et al 1981 ; Trudeau 2000 ; Truitt 2011 ).…”

“…Overall, 27 studies compared treatment effectiveness between feedback vs. no-feedback conditions. In more than half of these studies ( n = 15, 56 %) patients in the feedback condition had significantly higher levels of treatment effectiveness than patients in the no-feedback condition on at least one treatment outcome variable (Anker et al 2009 ; Brodey et al 2005 ; Galvinhill 2001 ; Harmon et al 2007 ; Hawkins 2004 ; Lambert et al 2001 , 2002 ; Priebe et al 2007 ; Reese et al 2009a ; Reese et al 2010 ; Reese et al 2009b ; Simon et al 2013 ; Slade 2008 ; Slade et al 2008 ; Soeken et al 1981 ; Truitt 2011 ).…”

“…In 14 studies feedback was given to patients and clinicians (Anker et al 2009 ; Byrne et al 2012 ; de Jong et al 2012 ; Hawkins 2004 ; Lester 2012 ; Newnham et al 2010 ; Priebe et al 2007 ; Puschner et al 2009 ; Reese et al 2009a ; Reese et al 2010 ; Reese et al 2009b ; Rise et al 2012 ; Simon et al 2013 ; Soeken et al 1981 ; Truitt, 2011 ). In nine (64 %) of these studies patients in the feedback condition had higher levels of treatment effectiveness than patients in the no-feedback condition for at least one outcome variable (Anker et al 2009 ; Hawkins, 2004 ; Priebe et al 2007 ; Reese et al 2009a ; Reese et al 2010 ; Reese et al 2009 ; Simon et al 2013 ; Soeken et al 1981 ; Truitt 2011 ). In addition, four studies directly compared clinician vs. clinician-patient recipient conditions.…”

“…There were seven studies that compared the effect of outcome feedback on collaborative practice between patients in the feedback vs. no-feedback conditions. Patients in the feedback condition showed higher levels of satisfaction with treatment ( n = 2; Marshall et al 2004 ; Priebe et al 2007 ), patient motivation referring to knowledge, skill, and confidence for self-management of their condition (Rise et al 2012 ), self-efficacy ( n = 1; Soeken et al 1981 ), insight ( n = 1; Soeken et al 1981 ), and involvement in care ( n = 1; Soeken et al 1981 ) compared to patients in the no-feedback condition.…”

A substantive and methodological review of couples group therapy outcome research

“…The present review will focus on research since Gurman's review in 1975 and will be concerned only with outcome studies which have specifically measured the effectiveness of couples group therapy. Several studies have utilized a couples group format, but have made no attempt to measure any of the issues pertinent to couples groups (e.g., Covert, 1981;Soeken et al, 1981). These studies use couples groups as a vehicle to conduct the research, but do not actually research the format of couples groups; the use of individuals, couples, or other groups would have likely produced the same results.…”