Meyer A E
Abteilung für Psychosomatik und Psychotherapie, Hamburg.
Psychother Psychosom Med Psychol. 1990 May;40(5):152-7.
The fact that the gross outcomes of quite different forms of psychotherapy do not differ accordingly has been attributed to the existence of factors communal to any and every form of psychotherapy. For empirical study this thesis has to be dichotomized: (1) Are there really communal factors? (2) Do these engender communal effects in different therapies? Our empirical investigation of client-centered versus psycho-dynamic short psychotherapy shows that (1) is correct, however, the frequencies of these communal element often differ significantly between the two therapy samples. The results and (2) show that in spite of communality the correlation between a certain process category and an outcome variable regularly only attains significance in one but not the other therapy sample--sometimes they even show contrary signs. Hence the initially described explanation seems to be yet another myth in psychotherapy research. This myth assumes (i) interventions to be "monosubstances" (ii) the "doses" of which can be adequately measured in frequency per time unit and (iii) which shows a monotone relation to outcome.
相当不同形式的心理治疗的总体结果并没有相应差异，这一事实被归因于任何形式的心理治疗都存在共同因素。对于实证研究，这一论点必须一分为二：（1）真的存在共同因素吗？（2）这些因素在不同疗法中会产生共同效果吗？我们对以客户为中心的短程心理治疗与精神动力学短程心理治疗的实证研究表明，（1）是正确的，然而，这些共同因素在两个治疗样本中的出现频率往往有显著差异。结果和（2）表明，尽管存在共同性，但某个过程类别与一个结果变量之间的相关性通常仅在一种治疗样本中达到显著水平，而在另一种样本中则不然——有时它们甚至显示出相反的迹象。因此，最初描述的解释似乎是心理治疗研究中的又一个神话。这个神话假定（i）干预措施是“单一物质”，（ii）其“剂量”可以通过单位时间内的频率进行充分测量，（iii）并且与结果呈单调关系。
