Cited by 307Psychotherapy Techniques and ApplicationsCounseling, Therapy, and Family DynamicsCounseling Practices and Supervision

Enhancing psychotherapy outcomes via providing feedback on client progress: a replication

Lambert, Michael J., Whipple, Jason L., Vermeersch, David A., Smart, David W., Hawkins, Eric J., Nielsen, Stevan Lars, Goates, Melissa·2002·Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy

Abstract

Several systems have been developed to monitor and feedback information about a client's responses to psychotherapy as a method of enhancing client outcome. The current study divided 1020 clients into four groups (two experimental and two control) to determine if feedback regarding client progress, when provided to a therapist, affected client outcome and number of sessions attended. Results showed that feedback increased the duration of treatment and improved outcome for clients identified as potential treatment failures thereby replicating an earlier study using nearly identical methodology. Nearly twice as many clients in the feedback group achieved clinically significant or reliable change and fewer were classified as deteriorated by the time treatment ended. For those clients who were predicted to have a positive response to treatment, feedback to therapists resulted in an equal number of treatment sessions and equivalent outcomes compared to the no feedback controls. The results are discussed in terms of quality management in routine clinical practice and the need to base treatment decisions on clients' response to treatment rather than arbitrary session limits. Suggestions for additional research aimed at enhancing the effects of feedback on client outcome are made. Copyright © 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/cpp.324

Cites

28 of 28 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, 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?

  • MBC has been associated with multi-faceted clinical benefits, including greater retention, engagement, and therapeutic alliances during treatment with better patient outcomes that occur more quickly and last longer than traditional care.

    “MBC has been associated with multi-faceted clinical benefits, including greater retention, engagement, and therapeutic alliances during treatment with better patient outcomes that occur more quickly and last longer than traditional care (14-19).”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Lambert, M. J., Whipple, J. L., Vermeersch, D. A., Smart, D. W., Hawkins, E. J., Nielsen, S. L., & Goates, M.
Affiliations
Brigham Young University (US)
Corresponding author
Lambert, Michael J.
Venue
Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2002-03
Volume
9
Issue
2
Pages
91-103
ISSN
  • 1063-3995 (ISSN-L)
  • 1099-0879
OpenAlex
W2084587614
Cited by
306
References
26
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 16 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 22 · 2015: 33 · 2014: 23 · 2013: 22 · 2012: 22
FWCI
8.81
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy (publishedVersion)
Funders
Brigham Young University
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychotherapy Techniques and Applications
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Counseling, Therapy, and Family Dynamics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Counseling Practices and Supervision
Keywords
psychotherapy outcome, therapist feedback, treatment duration, treatment failure prediction, reliable change, replication

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