CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 39Psychotherapy Techniques and ApplicationsPsychoanalysis and Psychopathology ResearchCounseling Practices and Supervision

Common (Nonspecific) Factors in Psychotherapy

Huibers, Marcus J. H., Cuijpers, Pim·2015·The Encyclopedia of Clinical Psychology
DOI 10.1002/9781118625392.wbecp272
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Common factors, factors that are common to all forms of psychotherapy, such as the relationship between patient and therapist (alliance), have been much discussed as potential mechanisms that explain how psychotherapy works. Fueled by the dodo bird verdict (the finding that many psychotherapies produce equivalent outcomes), this debate continues to date. Opponents of the common factor theory point to the correlational designs of common factor studies that do not allow causal inferences, whereas the proponents claim that the fact that most psychotherapies produce equivalent results shows that common factors must be responsible for the effects. In reality, there is little evidence that pleads for or against the common factor theory. Recent studies have begun to disentangle the temporal relation between therapeutic alliance and outcome (i.e., what changes first), but the findings are mixed. New lines of research are needed to resolve the debate. The question of which factors are responsible for the benefits of psychotherapy remains an empirical one.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/9781118625392.wbecp272

Cites

20 of 20 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Conducting randomized experiments that directly manipulate the alliance is challenging, primarily from an ethical point of view, but it is not entirely impossible.

    “In the case of the alliance, conducting such experiments is challenging, primarily from an ethical point of view, but it is not entirely impossible (Huibers & Cuijpers 2015).”

    From The Role of Common Factors in Psychotherapy Outcomes (2019) · cites this paper as Huibers & Cuijpers 2015

  • In some therapies that place more emphasis on the alliance, the alliance might be more strongly linked to outcome than in therapies that place less emphasis on the alliance.

    “Indeed, in some therapies that place more emphasis on the alliance (e.g., psychodynamic therapy), the alliance might be more strongly linked to outcome than in therapies that place less emphasis on the alliance (e.g., CBT) (Huibers & Cuijpers 2015).”

    From The Role of Common Factors in Psychotherapy Outcomes (2019) · cites this paper as Huibers & Cuijpers 2015

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Huibers, M. J. H., & Cuijpers, P.
Affiliations
Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam (NL)
ORCID
Venue
The Encyclopedia of Clinical Psychology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2015-01-23
Pages
1-6
DOI
10.1002/9781118625392.wbecp272
OpenAlex
W1533378687
Cited by
39
References
20
Citations by year
2025: 2 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 4 · 2015: 2
Type
reference entry
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
doi.wiley.com/10.1002/tdm_license_1.1 (tdm)
Locations
  • The Encyclopedia of Clinical Psychology (publishedVersion)
  • VU Research Portal (submittedVersion)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychotherapy Techniques and Applications
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychoanalysis and Psychopathology Research
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Counseling Practices and Supervision
Keywords
common factors, psychotherapy mechanisms, therapeutic relationship, non-specific factors

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review