The misleading Dodo Bird verdict. How much of the outcome variance is explained by common and specific factors?

Felice, Giulio de; Giuliani, Alessandro; Halfon, Sibel; Andreassi, Silvia; Paoloni, Giulia; Orsucci, Franco

doi:10.1016/j.newideapsych.2019.01.006

Cited by 36 publications

(31 citation statements)

References 45 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This paper addresses three linked issues. The first is that specific models are dominant in training and practice but there is long standing evidence that the benefit of psychotherapy is due to contextual factors and little (some argue none) is due to specific factors (Wampold, 2013;Wampold et al, 1997;Wampold & Imel, 2015), though the evidence is not uncontroversial and the underlying assumptions of the controversy may be overly simplistic (de Felice et al, 2019).…”

Section: Three Interlinked Issues That Form the Basis Of This Papermentioning

confidence: 99%

A reformulated contextual model of psychotherapy for treating anxiety and depression

Hyland

2020

Clinical Psychology Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Three Interlinked Issues That Form the Basis Of This Papermentioning

confidence: 99%

A reformulated contextual model of psychotherapy for treating anxiety and depression

Hyland

2020

Clinical Psychology Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Over the last few decades, psychotherapy researchers have put forward several models or taxonomies of common factors (also termed non-specific factors or universal factors), defined as “elements common to all psychotherapeutic approaches” (De Felice et al, 2019 , p. 50). Reviewing these models in full is beyond the scope of this article (see Lambert, 2013 ; Cuijpers et al, 2019 ), but the common factors that are frequently reported include client involvement, client expectations of outcome and perceived treatment credibility, self-understanding, and insight, as well as the therapeutic alliance (i.e., positive client-therapist relationship).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, while some researchers proposed that at least 80% of the variance in outcomes are attributed to client or extra-therapeutic factors as well as unexplained and error variance, others have argued that this is a misconception, because common and specific factors are significantly correlated and thus cannot be considered independently (De Felice et al, 2019 ). For example, a technique in a specific approach (specific factor) can be helpful because there is a strong alliance between the therapist and the client or because the client has high expectation or motivation for change (common factors).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

From Therapeutic Factors to Mechanisms of Change in the Creative Arts Therapies: A Scoping Review

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Empirical studies in the creative arts therapies (CATs; i.e., art therapy, dance/movement therapy, drama therapy, music therapy, psychodrama, and poetry/bibliotherapy) have grown rapidly in the last 10 years, documenting their positive impact on a wide range of psychological and physiological outcomes (e.g., stress, trauma, depression, anxiety, and pain). However, it remains unclear how and why the CATs have positive effects, and which therapeutic factors account for these changes. Research that specifically focuses on the therapeutic factors and/or mechanisms of change in CATs is only beginning to emerge. To gain more insight into how and why the CATs influence outcomes, we conducted a scoping review (Nstudies = 67) to pinpoint therapeutic factors specific to each CATs discipline, joint factors of CATs, and more generic common factors across all psychotherapy approaches. This review therefore provides an overview of empirical CATs studies dealing with therapeutic factors and/or mechanisms of change, and a detailed analysis of these therapeutic factors which are grouped into domains. A framework of 19 domains of CATs therapeutic factors is proposed, of which the three domains are composed solely of factors unique to the CATs: “embodiment,” “concretization,” and “symbolism and metaphors.” The terminology used in change process research is clarified, and the implications for future research, clinical practice, and CATs education are discussed.

show abstract

“…Another approach was developed in the context of complexity science and the paradigm of nonlinear dynamic systems (de Felice, Giuliani, et al, 2019; de Felice et al, ; Gelo & Salvatore, ; Haken, ; Haken & Schiepek, ; Halfon et al, ; Hayes & Strauss, ; Orsucci, , ; Strunk & Schiepek, ). Some important terms of the nonlinear dynamic systems approach are explained in a short glossary (see Box 1).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Complex individual pathways or standard tracks? A data‐based discussion on the trajectories of change in psychotherapy

Schiepek

Gelo

Kratzer

et al. 2020

Couns and Psychother Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: Current approaches of routine outcome monitoring (session-by-session measures) expect that trajectories of change should move on a standard track. Patients moving out of standard tracks are assumed to be at risk of deterioration. From a nonlinear dynamic systems perspective, there is not any assumption regarding a supposed standard track a patient should follow. Individual trajectories should be more complex than averaged tracks, highly individual, and characterised by pattern transitions. Method: We tested if high-frequency (daily) trajectories of change are moving on standard tracks, if there are different complexity levels of high-versus low-frequency time series, if 'not on track' dynamics will be correlated with poor outcome and if complexity peaks representing the critical instabilities of a process will be correlated with the outcome. The patients included in the data analysis (N = 88) used the Therapy Process Questionnaire (TPQ) for daily self-assessments and the ICD-10based Symptom Rating (ISR) for outcome evaluation. Results: High-frequency trajectories are not running on standard tracks and are not necessarily correlated with poor outcome. Locally increased complexity may be associated with good outcome. Conclusion: It may be useful to move beyond the concept of standard tracks and expected treatment outcomes. Routine feedback procedures should use the information that is given by the nonlinear dynamics of multiple change criteria. K E Y W O R D S dynamic complexity, nonlinear dynamic systems, on track versus. not on track, processoutcome research, psychotherapy feedback This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited and is not used for commercial purposes.

show abstract

The misleading Dodo Bird verdict. How much of the outcome variance is explained by common and specific factors?

Cited by 36 publications

References 45 publications

A reformulated contextual model of psychotherapy for treating anxiety and depression

A reformulated contextual model of psychotherapy for treating anxiety and depression

From Therapeutic Factors to Mechanisms of Change in the Creative Arts Therapies: A Scoping Review

Complex individual pathways or standard tracks? A data‐based discussion on the trajectories of change in psychotherapy

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About