Florida State University, Tallahassee, 32306, USA.
Am Psychol. 2011 Feb-Mar;66(2):149-51; discussion 152-4. doi: 10.1037/a0021190.
Comments on the original article, "The efficacy of psychodynamic psychotherapy," by J. Shedler (see record 2010-02208-012). As Shedler noted, some researchers have reflexively and stridently dismissed psychodynamic therapy (PT) as ineffective without granting outcome studies on this modality a fair hearing. We applaud Shedler's efforts to bring PT into the scientific mainstream and hope that his article encourages investigators to evaluate claims regarding PT's efficacy with a more objective eye. Nevertheless, as Shedler also observed, one reason for the scientific community's premature dismissal of PT is traceable to some psychodynamic practitioners' historical antipathy toward controlled research and propensity to overstate PT's efficacy. Regrettably, Shedler falls prey to the latter error by glossing over key methodological details, ignoring crucial findings that run counter to his position, and overstating the quality and quantity of the evidence base for PT. Because of space constraints, we focus only on a handful of the more serious shortcomings of Shedler's analysis (a more complete review of these issues is available from the first author on request).
对 J. Shedler 撰写的原始文章《精神分析动力心理疗法的疗效》（参见记录 2010-02208-012）的评论。正如 Shedler 所指出的，一些研究人员不假思索地断然否定精神分析疗法（PT）的疗效，而没有公正地听取这种疗法的结果研究。我们赞赏 Shedler 将 PT 纳入科学主流的努力，并希望他的文章能鼓励研究人员以更客观的眼光评估有关 PT 疗效的说法。然而，正如 Shedler 所观察到的，科学界之所以过早地否定 PT，原因之一是一些精神分析从业者对对照研究历来抱有敌意，而且倾向于夸大 PT 的疗效。遗憾的是，Shedler 犯了后一个错误，他掩盖了关键的方法细节，忽略了与他的立场相悖的关键发现，并且夸大了 PT 证据基础的质量和数量。由于篇幅限制，我们仅重点讨论 Shedler 分析中更严重的几个缺陷（关于这些问题的更完整审查可应第一作者的要求提供）。
