Wilson G Terence, Wilfley Denise E, Agras W Stewart, Bryson Susan W
Graduate School of Applied and Professional Psychology, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, Piscataway, NJ.
Departments of Psychiatry, Medicine, Pediatrics, and Psychology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO.
Clin Psychol (New York). 2011 Jun;18(2):119-125. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2850.2011.01243.x.
"Allegiance bias" has been hypothesized to compromise the findings of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). In contrast, our multi-site RCT involving the collaboration of investigators with different allegiances regarding interpersonal psychotherapy (IPT), guided self-help cognitive behavior therapy (CBTgsh), and behavioral weight loss therapy (BWL) for binge eating disorder showed no evidence of any differential site × treatment effects. The findings indicate that "allegiance bias" does not necessarily occur in well-controlled RCTS with appropriate therapist training. We also examined the role of individual therapist differences that have been alleged to be more important than treatment effects. No individual therapist effects emerged on any measure in either IPT or CBTgsh, both of which were significantly more effective than BWL at two-year follow-up.
“忠诚偏倚”被认为会影响随机对照试验（RCT）的结果。相比之下，我们的多中心随机对照试验涉及了人际心理治疗（IPT）、引导式自助认知行为疗法（CBTgsh）和行为减肥疗法（BWL）治疗暴饮暴食症的不同忠诚立场的研究者合作，结果未显示出任何不同试验点×治疗效果的差异。研究结果表明，在经过适当治疗师培训的严格对照随机对照试验中，“忠诚偏倚”不一定会出现。我们还研究了个体治疗师差异的作用，据称这种差异比治疗效果更重要。在IPT或CBTgsh中，任何测量指标均未出现个体治疗师效应，在两年随访中，这两种疗法均比BWL显著更有效。
