Cited by 149Psychotherapy Techniques and ApplicationsMeta-analysis and systematic reviewsPsychology Research and Bibliometrics

The Dodo Bird Verdict–controversial, inevitable and important: a commentary on 30 years of meta-analyses

Budd, Rick, Hughes, Ian·2009·Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy

Abstract

In this article, the assertion that different psychological therapies are of broadly similar efficacy-often called the 'Dodo Bird Verdict'-is contrasted with the alternative view that there are specific therapies that are more effective than others for particular diagnoses. We note that, despite thirty years of meta-analytic reviews tending to support the finding of therapy equivalence, this view is still controversial and has not been accepted by many within the psychological therapy community; we explore this from a theory of science perspective. It is further argued that the equivalence of ostensibly different therapies is an inevitable consequence of the methodology that has dominated this field of investigation; namely, randomised controlled trials [RCTs]. The implicit assumptions of RCTs are analysed and it is argued that what we know about psychological therapy indicates that it is not appropriate to treat 'type of therapy' and 'diagnosis' as if they were independent variables in an experimental design. It is noted that one logical consequence of this is that we would not expect RCTs to be capable of isolating effects that are specific to 'type of therapy' and 'diagnosis'. Rather, RCTs would only be expected to be capable of identifying the non-specific effects of covariates, such as those of therapist allegiance. It is further suggested that those non-specific effects that have been identified via meta-analysis are not trivial findings, but rather characterise important features of psychological therapy.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/cpp.648

Cites

92 of 92 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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Budd, R., & Hughes, I.
Affiliations
  • Maindiff Court Hospital (GB)
  • Cardiff and Vale University Health Board (GB)
Corresponding author
Hughes, Ian
Venue
Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2009-09-02
Volume
16
Issue
6
Pages
510-522
ISSN
  • 1063-3995 (ISSN-L)
  • 1099-0879
OpenAlex
W1999117020
Cited by
149
References
89
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 12 · 2018: 15 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 13 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 13 · 2012: 6
FWCI
3.88
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychotherapy Techniques and Applications
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Psychology Research and Bibliometrics
Keywords
randomized controlled trials, non-specific effects, theory of science, methodological critique
MeSH terms
Anxiety Disorders, Mental Disorders, Depressive Disorder, Humans, Individuality, Outcome and Process Assessment, Health Care, Professional-Patient Relations, Psychotherapy, Meta-Analysis as Topic, Observer Variation, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Evidence-Based Medicine

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