Selected Group Psychotherapy Evaluation Studies

Rickard, Henry C.

doi:10.1080/00221309.1962.9711525

Cited by 17 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Group studies in the 1960s were on institutionalized populations, where groups were often used as augments to other treatments (Pattison, 1965: Rickard, 1962Stotsky and Zolik, 1965). In the 1970s the studies met more rigorous research criteria, and group therapy was more often used as the only therapy.…”

Section: Overview Of the Group Outcome Literaturementioning

confidence: 99%

Special Section: Contemporary Challenges for Research in Group Analysis

Lorentzen

2006

Group Analysis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this paper, I underline the challenges for group-analytic research by demonstrating the immense difference in the amount of research done in group psychotherapy in general as compared to group analysis. After presenting an overview of findings from empirical, quantitative outcome studies in group psychotherapy at large, I will discuss some trends in contemporary group psychotherapy research, and finally, I will give a rough sketch of group-analytic research. I will focus on quantitative research and I will see group analysis as a clinical enterprise - a theory, model, art and craft that has been developed and can be used to treat psychiatric disorders, and toameliorate psychological problems.

show abstract

Section: Overview Of the Group Outcome Literaturementioning

confidence: 99%

Special Section: Contemporary Challenges for Research in Group Analysis

Lorentzen

2006

Group Analysis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Case studies and anecdotal reports characterized the group literature in the first half of the 20th century, with the first comparative studies emerging in the 1960s (Barlow, Burlingame, & Fuhriman, 2000). Early reviews (Pattison, 1965; Rickard, 1962; Stotsky & Zolik, 1965) concluded that group therapy was a helpful adjunctive treatment, although little empirical evidence supported its use as a robust independent treatment. Reviewers in the latter part of that decade (Anderson, 1968; Mann, 1966) began to give group a heartier endorsement, describing it as capable of producing objectively measurable change in patient attitude, personality, and behavior.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The differential effectiveness of group psychotherapy: A meta-analytic perspective.

Burlingame¹,

Fuhriman²,

Mosier³

2003

Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice

301

157

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The differential effectiveness of group psychotherapy was estimated in a meta-analysis of 111 experimental and quasi-experimental studies published over the past 20 years. A number of client, therapist, group, and methodological variables were examined in an attempt to determine specific as well as generic effectiveness. Three different effect sizes were computed: active versus wait list, active versus alternative treatment, and pre-to posttreatment improvement rates. The active versus wait list overall effect size (0.58) indicated that the average recipient of group treatment is better off than 72% of untreated controls. Improvement was related to group composition, setting, and diagnosis. Findings are discussed within the context of what the authors have learned about group treatment, meta-analytic studies of the extant group literature, and what remains for future research.

show abstract

“…Methodological problems aside, the studies provided tentative support for the efficacy of group treatment. Rickard (1962) essentially repeated the claims of Burchard and his colleagues from 1948 that enormous variability of patients, therapists, and treatment models leads to questionable findings. Pattison's (1965) work reported modest behavioral support for success with institutionalized patients.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 82%