McLeod John, Stänicke Erik, Oddli Hanne Weie, Smith Stephanie, Pearce Peter, Cooper Mick
Institute for Integrative Counselling and Psychotherapy, Dublin, Ireland.
Department of Psychology, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.
Front Psychol. 2024 Jun 4;15:1390579. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1390579. eCollection 2024.
In both routine practice contexts and research studies, evidence from standardized self-report symptom measures, administered pre- and post-treatment, is predominantly used to determine whether psychotherapy has been successful. Understanding the nature of unsuccessful psychotherapy requires an ability to evaluate the credibility of outcome data generated by such techniques. An important body of research has identified discrepancies between outcomes assessed through symptom measures and those obtained from other sources. However, not enough is known about the extent to which such exist.
This study analyzes the relationship between outcomes, as assessed by a standardized self-report measure, and as assessed by ratings of young people's descriptions of change at post-counseling interviews.
Participants were 50 young people (13-16 years old) who had taken part in a trial of up to 10 weeks of school-based humanistic counseling. Our primary standardized measure was the Young Person's CORE (YP-CORE). To assess young people's experiences of counseling change, three independent raters scrutinized transcripts of post-counseling interviews, and scored levels of helpfulness on a 1 (Not at all helpful) to 10 (Extremely helpful) scale. Inter-rater reliabilities were 0.94 (Cronbach's Alpha) and 0.96 (McDonald's Omega). Sensitivity analyses were conducted to explore relationships between helpfulness ratings and other outcome measures, i.e., satisfaction with counseling (ESQ) and the Goal-Based-Outcome Tool (GBO), and process measures, i.e., the Working Alliance Inventory (WAI-S) and the Barret Lennard Relationship Inventory (BLRI).
Multilevel analysis indicated that helpfulness ratings were not significantly associated with changes in YP-CORE scores. Analyzed categorically, 38% of those showing reliable improvement on the standardized measure were below the median for self-described helpfulness, and 47% of those not showing reliable change were at or above the median for self-described helpfulness. Sensitivity analyses demonstrated closer correlations between helpfulness ratings and other outcome measures (ESQ and GBO), and between helpfulness ratings and process measures (WAI-S and BLRI).
Our results raise questions about reliance on symptom change outcome measures for defining treatment success and failure, given their disparity with clients' own descriptions of the helpfulness of therapy. Implications for practice and research are discussed.
在常规临床实践和研究中,主要通过治疗前后进行的标准化自我报告症状测量所获得的证据来确定心理治疗是否成功。要理解心理治疗未成功的本质,需要有能力评估此类技术所产生的结果数据的可信度。大量重要研究已发现通过症状测量评估的结果与从其他来源获得的结果之间存在差异。然而,对于此类差异存在的程度,我们了解得还不够。
本研究分析了通过标准化自我报告测量评估的结果与通过青少年在咨询后访谈中对变化的描述评分所评估的结果之间的关系。
研究对象为50名青少年(13 - 16岁),他们参与了一项为期长达10周的校内人文主义咨询试验。我们的主要标准化测量工具是青少年核心量表(YP - CORE)。为了评估青少年对咨询变化的体验,三名独立评分者仔细审查了咨询后访谈的记录,并在1(完全没有帮助)至10(极其有帮助)的量表上对帮助程度进行评分。评分者间信度为0.94(克朗巴哈系数)和0.96(麦克唐纳ω系数)。进行了敏感性分析,以探讨帮助程度评分与其他结果测量指标(即对咨询的满意度(ESQ)和基于目标的结果工具(GBO))以及过程测量指标(即工作联盟量表(WAI - S)和巴雷特·伦纳德关系量表(BLRI))之间的关系。
多层次分析表明,帮助程度评分与YP - CORE得分的变化没有显著关联。分类分析显示,在标准化测量中显示出可靠改善的人中有38%的自我描述帮助程度低于中位数,而在标准化测量中未显示出可靠变化的人中有47%的自我描述帮助程度处于或高于中位数。敏感性分析表明,帮助程度评分与其他结果测量指标(ESQ和GBO)以及帮助程度评分与过程测量指标(WAI - S和BLRI)之间的相关性更强。
鉴于症状变化结果测量与客户自身对治疗帮助程度的描述存在差异,我们的研究结果对依赖症状变化结果测量来定义治疗成败提出了质疑。文中还讨论了对实践和研究的启示。