Hsu L M
School of Psychology, Fairleigh Dickinson University, Teaneck, NJ 07666, USA.
Behav Res Ther. 1999 Dec;37(12):1195-202; discussion 1219-33. doi: 10.1016/s0005-7967(99)00033-9.
Objectives of this commentary are to (1) note major similarities and differences of three methods of identifying reliable and clinically significant client changes, (2) demonstrate how graphs can be used to identify reliable and clinically significant client changes with each method, (3) describe uses and interpretations of overlaid graphs, (4) draw attention to an alternative to the Hageman and Arrindell method of estimating true score changes, and (5) caution users of the three methods against interpreting reliable and/or clinically significant changes which occur in psychotherapy as evidence of therapy 'efficacy' or 'effectiveness'.
(1)指出识别可靠且具有临床意义的来访者变化的三种方法的主要异同;(2)展示如何运用图表通过每种方法来识别可靠且具有临床意义的来访者变化;(3)描述叠加图表的用途及解读方式;(4)提醒人们注意一种不同于哈格曼和阿林德尔估计真实分数变化方法的替代方法;(5)告诫使用这三种方法的人,不要将心理治疗中出现的可靠和/或具有临床意义的变化解读为治疗“有效性”或“成效”的证据。