Long-term effects on psychotherapy of initial treatment conditions

Roth, Irvin; Rhudick, Paul J.; Shaskan, Donald A.; Slobin, Morton S.; Wilkinson, Agnes; Young, Harl H.

doi:10.1016/0022-3956(64)90014-7

Cited by 10 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The three studies we found of schizophrenic patients (Fairweather, Simon, Gebhard, Weingarten, Holland, Sanders, Stone, & Reahl, 1960;Grinspoon, Ewalt, & Shader, 1968;May, 1968) suggest that psychotherapy combined with pharmacotherapy is more effective than psychotherapy alone, but in most ways not more effective than pharmacotherapy alone. Similar trends emerged from studies of neurotic patients (Daneman, 1961;Gibbs, Wilkins, & Lauterbach, 1957;Lorr, McNair, Weinstein, Michaux, & Raskin, 1961;Lorr, McNair, & Weinstein, 1963;Rickels, Cattell, Weise, Gray, Yee, Mallin, & Aaronson, 1966;Roth et al, 1964), but this latter group is less wellcontrolled and the role of psychotherapy as a treatment method was limited. In all of these latter studies the treatment, generally on a once-a-week basis, did not exceed 8 weeks.…”

Section: Therapist Factors (Judged From the Sessions)mentioning

confidence: 67%

“…In three out of three studies, a long and mandatory wait between the time of applying for psychotherapy and beginning it is negatively related to outcome (Gordon & Cartwright, 1954;Roth et al, 1964;Uhlenhuth & Duncan, 1968). Two main implications may be drawn from these results: First, the practice of using the patient as his own control by having him wait for psychotherapy and retesting him during the waiting period has in itself a negative impact on his future psychotherapy.…”

Section: Therapist Factors (Judged From the Sessions)mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Factors influencing the outcome of psychotherapy: A review of quantitative research.

Luborsky¹,

Auerbach²,

Chandler³

et al. 1971

Psychological Bulletin

524

259

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

One hundred and sixty-six studies are reviewed of predictions of outcome of individual psychotherapy with adult patients. Predictors arc classed as patient, therapist, or treatment factors; the number of predictors which were significant versus nonsignificant are tallied. By far, the largest number deals with patient factors-relatively few with therapist or treatment. Those patient factors which were most often significantly associated with improvement are psychological health or adequacy of personality functioning, absence of schizoid trends, motivation, intelligence, anxiety, educational and social assets, and experiencing (rated from early sessons). Therapist factors are experience, attitude and interest patterns, empathy, and similarity of patient and therapist. The treatment factors revealed one main trend: the number of sessions. The review ends with a methodological evaluation and a suggestion for crossvalidation of the main predictors.

show abstract

Section: Therapist Factors (Judged From the Sessions)mentioning

confidence: 67%

Section: Therapist Factors (Judged From the Sessions)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Factors influencing the outcome of psychotherapy: A review of quantitative research.

Luborsky¹,

Auerbach²,

Chandler³

et al. 1971

Psychological Bulletin

524

259

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A case in point is the common use of waiting lists. Luborsky et al (1971), reviewing the three available studies (Gordon & Cartwright, 1954;Roth, Rhudick, Shaskan, Slobin, Wilkinson, & Young, 1964;Uhlenhuth & Duncan, 1968), found that a "long and mandatory wait between the time of applying for psychotherapy and beginning it is negatively related to outcome [p. 154]."…”

Section: "Dropouts" From the Mental Health Systemmentioning

confidence: 99%

Second-order effects in mental health treatment.

Graziano

Fink²

1973

Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article argues that mental health clients are typically processed through a fairly standardized, complex professional system which, in its pursuit of salutary "helping" goals may also be occasioning serious, negative second-order effects for its clients. Clinicians have paid little attention to this possibility, and negative second-order effects are thus not typically monitored in therapy or studied in research. The intent of the present article is to direct the professionals' attention to the reasonable assumption that such effects may occur, and, if so, may have important professional implications.In earlier articles (Graziano, 1969(Graziano, , 1972 it was suggested that the mental health profession is a highly complex system with considerable social power; that its consequences go beyond the simple, first-order effects of "helping," . . . that there may also be unrecognized second-order effects, including . . . the continued support of dehumanizing institutions and procedures [Graziano, 1969, p. 18].

show abstract

“…Many agencies have long waiting lists; some teaching centers require extended evaluations; in some settings, “specialized” resources (e.g., particular types of groups) may be available only at certain times of the year. In examining the effect of placing patients seeking individual psychotherapy on waiting lists, several researchers have found significant negative effects on outcome (Roth et al, 1964; Uhlenhuth & Duncan, 1968; Zeiss, Lewinsohn, & Munoz, 1979). We investigated the impact of treatment delay on outcome and patient satisfaction in both individual and group psychotherapy.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Treatment delay, outcome, and satisfaction in time-limited group and individual psychotherapy.

Budman¹,

Springer²

1987

Professional Psychology: Research and Practice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

As part of a randomized clinical trial in which we compared outcome in time-limited individual and time-limited group psychotherapy, patients were interviewed and completed a battery of assessment measures. All participants in the study were then randomly assigned to one or the other treatment modality. There were inevitable delays before patients began their assigned therapies. Group treatment patients waited an appreciably longer period of time, on average, than did individual treatment patients (48 days vs. 31 days). Nonetheless, it was only for individual therapy patients that we found a highly significant relationship between this delay and treatment satisfaction at the completion of therapy.

show abstract

Long-term effects on psychotherapy of initial treatment conditions

Cited by 10 publications

References 6 publications

Factors influencing the outcome of psychotherapy: A review of quantitative research.

Factors influencing the outcome of psychotherapy: A review of quantitative research.

Second-order effects in mental health treatment.

Treatment delay, outcome, and satisfaction in time-limited group and individual psychotherapy.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About