Towards higher standards and improved treatments for perfectionism: A reply to Egan et al. (2023).

Abstract

It is vital to be transparent and clear about empirically valid findings in treatment research to safeguard patients, provide guidance for policymakers, and facilitate the expansion of empirical knowledge. In the current article, we address the criticisms and allegations in Egan et al.’s (2023) critique of our meta-analytic replication (Smith et al., 2023) that assessed the efficacy of cognitive behavioural therapy for perfectionism (CBT-P). By reanalyzing data from 16 randomized controlled trials included in three meta-analytic reviews, we confirmed some limited support for CBT-P while highlighting that many participants do not experience reliable or sustained posttreatment improvements. Further, we found a lack of evidence of change in several pernicious elements of perfectionism and that the dropout rate was higher in treatment conditions than in control conditions, suggesting poor acceptability. In this rejoinder, we respond to Egan et al. (2023) and discuss what is needed to improve the quality of research and advance treatments for perfectionism. We underscore the ongoing necessity for continuous improvements and new developments that transcend existing paradigms and pave the way for more effective treatment strategies for people struggling with perfectionism.