Cited by 305Psychotherapy Techniques and ApplicationsAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesPsychological Treatments and Assessments

A meta-(re) analysis of the effects of cognitive therapy versus ‘other therapies’ for depression

Wampold, Bruce E, Minami, Takuya, Baskin, Thomas W, Callen Tierney, Sandra·2002·Journal of Affective Disorders

Abstract

Background Cognitive therapy (CT) for depression has been found to be efficacious for the treatment of depression. In comparison to other psychotherapies, CT has been shown to be approximately equal to behavior therapies, but sometimes superior to 'other therapies.' The latter comparison is problematic given that 'other therapies' contain bona fide treatments as well as treatments without therapeutic rationale for depression.Method A meta-analysis was conducted for studies that compared CT to 'other therapies' in an earlier meta-analysis, except that in this meta-analysis 'other therapies' were classified as bona fide and non-bona fide.Results The benefits of CT were found to be approximately equal to the benefits of bona fide non-CT and behavioral treatments, but superior to non-bona fide treatments.Conclusions The results of this study fail to support the superiority of CT for depression. On the contrary, these results support the conclusion that all bona fide psychological treatments for depression are equally efficacious.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/s0165-0327(00)00287-1

Cites

68 of 68 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?

  • CBT was only marginally superior to bona fide therapies for adult depression (ES=0.16, p < .06).

    “They then compared CBT to the group of therapies they identified as bona fide and found that CBT was only marginally superior (ES=0.16, p b .06).”

    From The empirical status of cognitive-behavioral therapy: A review of meta-analyses (2006) · cites this paper as Wampold et al. (2002)

  • All psychological therapies share commonalities such as therapeutic alliance and the opportunity to express thoughts and gain understanding of the self.

    “Additionally, all psychological therapies were considered due to evidence of commonalities between therapies such as therapeutic alliance, the opportunity to express thoughts and gain understanding of the self (Luborsky et al., 2002; Rosenzweig, 1936; Wampold et al., 2002).”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Wampold, B. E., Minami, T., Baskin, T. W., & Callen Tierney, S.
Affiliations
University of Wisconsin–Madison (US)
Corresponding author
Wampold, Bruce E
Venue
Journal of Affective Disorders
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2002-04
Volume
68
Issue
2-3
Pages
159-165
ISSN
0165-0327 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2171087497
Cited by
305
References
68
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 19 · 2015: 17 · 2014: 21 · 2013: 20 · 2012: 18
FWCI
12.37
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Affective Disorders (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 › Psychological Treatments and Assessments
Keywords
cognitive therapy, depression, psychotherapy efficacy, behavior therapy, treatment comparison, treatment equivalence
MeSH terms
Depressive Disorder, Humans, Outcome and Process Assessment, Health Care, Psychotherapy, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy

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