CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 199Psychotherapy Techniques and ApplicationsAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesPsychoanalysis and Psychopathology Research

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 141 of the 141 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Empirical evaluation of the assumptions in identifying evidence based treatments in mental health

Blatt, Sidney J., Zuroff, David C.·2005·Clinical Psychology Review
DOI 10.1016/j.cpr.2005.03.001
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Extensive analyses of data from the remarkably comprehensive data set established by the Treatment of Depression Collaborative Research Program (TDCRP), initiated and conducted by the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH), enabled us to examine the contributions of three dimensions of the treatment process (type of treatment, aspects of the therapeutic relationship, and patients' pretreatment personality characteristics) to three assessments of therapeutic change (symptom reduction, reduction of vulnerability, and development of adaptive capacities) evaluated at termination and extended follow-up. The most consistent factors predicting therapeutic gain were the quality of the therapeutic relationship and patients' pretreatment personality dimensions. The implications of these findings for clinical practice, training, and research are discussed.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.cpr.2005.03.001

Cites

141 of 141 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Verification

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?

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. Blatt, 2004, Das dialogische selbst: Adaptive und maladaptive dimesionen, vol. 2, 285
  2. Consumer Reports, 2004, Drug versus talk therapy, Consumer Reports, 22
  3. Gabbard, 1995, General considerations in psychiatric treatment, vol. 1, 1
  4. Luyten, P. (2002). Normbesef en depressie: Aanzet tot een integratief theoretisch kader en een empirisch onderzoek aan de hand van de depressietheorie van S. J. Blatt. (Personal standards and depression: An integrative psychodynamic framework, and an empirical investigation of S. J. Blatt's theory of depression). Doctoral dissertation, University of Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 199

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Blatt, S. J., & Zuroff, D. C.
Affiliations
  • Yale University (US)
  • McGill University (CA)
Corresponding author
Blatt, Sidney J.
ORCID
Zuroff, David C.
Venue
Clinical Psychology Review
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2005-06
Volume
25
Issue
4
Pages
459-486
ISSN
0272-7358 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.cpr.2005.03.001
OpenAlex
W2158434987
Cited by
199
References
135
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 14 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 13 · 2014: 12 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 14
FWCI
2.30
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
Locations
  • Clinical Psychology Review (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
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
evidence-based treatment, depression treatment, therapeutic relationship, treatment process, therapeutic change, symptom relief, vulnerability reduction, adaptive capacity, treatment outcome predictors
MeSH terms
Mental Disorders, Humans, Interpersonal Relations, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, Treatment Outcome, Evidence-Based Medicine, Empirical Research

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