Critical review of research on psychotherapy outcome with adolescents: 1967–1977.

Abstract

This article provides a critical review of research on psychotherapy outcome with adolescents. Studies on individual, group, and family therapy that were published largely from 1967 through 1977 are described and critically evaluated. Of 33 independent investigations, 5 are judged as exemplary in methodological scope and rigor. Although methodological deficiencies abound, the greater weight of available evidence on adolescents does point toward the superiority of psychotherapy over no-therapy conditions, with the median rate of positive outcome with psychotherapy being approximately 75%, compared with a rate of 39% without psychotherapy. Little is presently known, however, regarding the effects of specific patient, therapist, and process variables on adolescent therapy outcome. Problems involved in evaluating psychotherapy outcome with adolescents are discussed, and guidelines for future research are provided. w c There were initially 30 subjects, but 5 left after the first 3 mo. of therapy. d Follow-up on 10 subjects, but only 9 were available at posttest. c The two groups were reportedly matched on age and sex. f Attributed to specific events in academic calendar. The nonpatients had significantly higher pretest anxiety scores than the patients. K This classification was largely made post hoc and seems to have been confounded with the actual process and outcome of therapy. h School information was available on 14 of the subjects. * Out of the S3 patients contacted for folow-up, 60 replied; of these. 37 were patients who had continued in psychiatric treatment after the initial evaluation. J This is perhaps more an indication of differential prognosis for the two kinds of offenders than a reflection of therapy outcome. k 50% of the patients solicited for posttherapy interviews responded. 1 This is perhaps as much an indication of differential prognosis for continuers and terminators as it is a reflection of therapy outcome. 10 Nonretardates were drawn from a separate agency.

Evaluating the Effectiveness of Child and Adolescent Group Treatment: A Meta-Analytic Review

“…The reference sections of previous reviews, m n t relevant public@ions, and articles identified in the computer search were examined for studies which coul~d be included in the analysis (e.g., Casey & Berman, 1985;Dagley, et. al, 1994;Dies & Riester, 1986;Sugar, 1993;Tramonta, 1980;Weisz et al, 1987). Initially, well over 100 studies were identified for possible inclusion in this study.…”

“…et al, 1978;Dagley et al, 1994;Dies & Riester, 1986;Kazdin, 1991;Sugar, 1993;Tramonta, 1980), both in quantity of studies and quality or sophistication of its methodology @agley et Kazdin, Bass, Ayers, & Rogers, 1990). This mela-analysis, based on 20 years of outcome literature, produced only 56 rateable outcome studbs.…”

Child psychoanalytic psychotherapy in the UK National Health Service: an historical analysis

“…Eysenck's challenge in 1952 is quoted by several authors (Eysenck, 1985;Hibbs, 2001;Kazdin, 1978;Tramontana, 1980). He reviewed the literature on the effi cacy of psychotherapy and concluded that psychotherapy made no impact on the process of spontaneous remission (Eysenck, 1952(Eysenck, /1973.…”

“…As more research emerged, Eysenck's original work was reassessed. Two researchers reanalysed Eysenck's fi rst study and criticized it for overestimating the recovery rate in the untreated group (Tramontana, 1980). Yet the critics were not completely silenced.…”

Research on psychotherapy with children and adolescents: An overview of evolving trends and current issues

“…For decades thereafter, the literature was dominated by rebuttals, new reviews, and re-reviews. An excellent picture of the progress in the field can be obtained by a serial reading of critical articles following Levitt's (1957) challenge, including, Heinicke and Goldman (1960), Hood-Williams (1960), Eisenberg and Gruenberg (1961), Levitt (1963), Heinicke and Strassmann (1975), Hartmann, Roper, and Gelfand (1977), Barrett, Hampe, & Miller (1978), Tramontana (1980), Casey and Berman (1985), Weisz, Weiss, Alicke, and Klotz (1987), Kazdin, Bass, Ayers, & Rodgers (1990), Kazdin (1991), Mann and Borduin (1991), and Kazdin (1993). More restricted reviews of specific interventions are presented by Urbain and Kendall (1980), Ollendick (1986), Kovacs and Paulauskas (1986), Hazelrigg, Cooper, and Borduin (1987), Werry and Wollersheim (1989), Barrnett, Docherty, and Frommelt (1991), Durlak, Fuhrman, andLampman (1991), andKenclall (1993).…”