Cited by 95Psychotherapy Techniques and ApplicationsAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesPsychoanalysis and Psychopathology Research

Assessing the unwanted: A systematic review of instruments used to assess negative effects of psychotherapy

Open access
Herzog, Philipp, Lauff, Sören, Rief, Winfried, Brakemeier, Eva‐Lotta·2019·Brain and Behavior

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: While the efficacy of psychotherapy in the treatment of mental disorders is well examined, systematic research into negative effects of psychotherapy seems comparatively rare. Therefore, this review evaluates instruments for assessing negative effects of psychotherapy in order to create a consensus framework and make recommendations for their assessment. METHODS: The study selection procedure follows current best-practice guidelines for conducting systematic reviews, with 10 included studies in three databases (PsycINFO, PubMed, and Web of Science). The nine instruments identified were each critically reviewed concerning the theoretical orientation, including the assessed domains of negative effects, psychometric properties, and diagnostic characteristics. RESULTS: Seventeen domains of negative effects of psychotherapy were identified but inconsistently assessed by the nine instruments. Most instruments provide some initial data on their psychometric properties. Regarding diagnostic characteristics, different item-response formats are used but often with reference to "attribution to therapy." CONCLUSION: This review indicates that the existing instruments for assessing negative effects of psychotherapy cover a wide range of relevant domains without any consensus on the most important ones and their psychometric properties are usually unsatisfactory. A framework for consensus, building on the definition and conceptualization of negative effects, is synthesized, and recommendations for improving the assessment are derived.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/brb3.1447

Cites

53 of 53 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • The INEP item construction involved a literature search, expert rating, and pilot study, which speaks for good content validity compared to similar scales.

    “Item construction for the INEP involved a literature search, expert rating, and pilot study, which speaks for good content validity compared to similar scales (Herzog et al., 2019).”

    From Effective—and Tolerable: Acceptance and Side Effects of Intensified Exposure for Anxiety Disorders (2023) · cites this paper as Herzog et al., 2019

    In Results, under Evaluation of psychometric properties (Table 3; page unavailable), the review lists a literature review and consultation with researchers for INEP and describes its content-related validity as strong. The table lists a pilot study for NEQ, not INEP, so it does not support attributing all three item-construction steps to INEP. (LLM, conf=0.90)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 5

  1. Burlingame, G. M., MacKenzie, K. R., & Strauß, B. (2004). Small group treatment: Evidence for effectiveness and mechanisms of change In Lambert M. J. (Ed.), Bergin & Garfield's Handbook of psychotherapy and behavior change (pp. 647– 696). New York: Wiley & Sons.
  2. Caspar, F., & Jacobi, F. (2007). Psychotherapieforschung In Hiller W., Leibing E., Leichsenring F., & Sulz S. K. D. (Eds.), Lehrbuch der Psychotherapie für die Ausbildung zur/zum Psychologischen PsychotherapeutIn und für ärztliche Weiterbildung, Band 1: Wissenschaftliche Grundlagen der Psychotherapie (pp. 395– 410). München, Germany: CIP‐Medien.
  3. Linden, M., Strauß, B., Scholten, S., Nestoriuc, Y., Brakemeier, E.‐L., & Wasilewski, J. (2018). Definition and decision‐making in the determination and detection of side effects of. psychotherapy. PPmP ‐ Psychotherapie Psychosomatik Medizinische Psychologie, 68(09/10), 377– 382. 30286505
  4. Strauß, B., Strupp, H. H., Burgmeier-Lohse, M., Wille, H., & Storm, S. (1992). Deutschsprachige Version der Vanderbilt-Psychotherapie-Skalen: Beschreibung und Anwendung in zwei Kurztherapien. Zeitschrift für Klinische Psychologie, Psychopathologie und Psychotherapie, 40(4), 411– 430. 1441689
  5. Zwingmann, C., Metzger, D., & Jäckel, W. H. (1998). Short form‐36 health survey (SF‐36): Psychometrische analysen der deutschen version bei rehabilitanden mit chronischen rückenschmerzen. Diagnostica, 44(4), 209– 219.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Herzog, P., Lauff, S., Rief, W., & Brakemeier, E.
Affiliations
Philipps University of Marburg (DE)
Corresponding author
Herzog, Philipp
Venue
Brain and Behavior
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2019-10-24
Volume
9
Issue
12
Pages
e01447-e01447
ISSN
  • 2157-9032 (ISSN-L)
  • 2162-3279
OpenAlex
W2981659549
Cited by
95
References
53
Citations by year
2026: 15 · 2025: 21 · 2024: 19 · 2023: 18 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 1
FWCI
0.87
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Brain and Behavior (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychotherapy Techniques and Applications
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychoanalysis and Psychopathology Research
Keywords
adverse effects, psychotherapy outcome assessment, assessment instruments, psychometric properties, psychiatric treatment
MeSH terms
Mental Disorders, Humans, Psychometrics, Psychotherapy

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