Cited by 651Psychotherapy Techniques and ApplicationsCounseling Practices and SupervisionMental Health Treatment and Access

Racial/ethnic matching of clients and therapists in mental health services: A meta-analytic review of preferences, perceptions, and outcomes.

Cabral, Raquel R., Smith, Timothy B.·2011·Journal of Counseling Psychology

Abstract

Across several decades the effects of matching clients with therapists of the same race/ethnicity have been explored using a variety of approaches. We conducted a meta-analysis of 3 variables frequently used in research on racial/ethnic matching: individuals' preferences for a therapist of their own race/ethnicity, clients' perceptions of therapists across racial/ethnic match, and therapeutic outcomes across racial/ethnic match. Across 52 studies of preferences, the average effect size (Cohen's d) was 0.63, indicating a moderately strong preference for a therapist of one's own race/ethnicity. Across 81 studies of individuals' perceptions of therapists, the average effect size was 0.32, indicating a tendency to perceive therapists of one's own race/ethnicity somewhat more positively than other therapists. Across 53 studies of client outcomes in mental health treatment, the average effect size was 0.09, indicating almost no benefit to treatment outcomes from racial/ethnic matching of clients with therapists. These 3 averaged effect sizes were characterized by substantial heterogeneity: The effects of racial/ethnic matching are highly variable. Studies involving African American participants demonstrated the highest effect sizes across all 3 types of evaluations: preferences, perceptions, and outcomes.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/a0025266

Cites

225 of 225 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?

  • Adapting psychotherapies to patients' cultural worldview, cultural humility, and matching between patient and provider cultural identities improve treatment outcomes.

    “For example, adapting psychotherapies to patients’ cultural worldview147, cultural humility (that is, a lack of superiority and openness to patients’ cultural perspectives)148, and matching between patient and provider cultural identities improve treatment outcomes149.”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

3 of the 228 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Cabral, R. R., & Smith, T. B.
Affiliations
Brigham Young University (US)
Venue
Journal of Counseling Psychology
Published
2011
Volume
58
Issue
4
Pages
537-554
ISSN
  • 0022-0167 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-2168
OpenAlex
W2082304096
Cited by
651
References
228
Citations by year
2026: 41 · 2025: 51 · 2024: 83 · 2023: 44 · 2022: 54 · 2021: 50 · 2020: 52 · 2019: 34 · 2018: 40 · 2017: 61 · 2016: 35 · 2015: 43 · 2014: 26 · 2013: 22 · 2012: 13
FWCI
21.35
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Counseling Psychology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • ScholarsArchive (Brigham Young University) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychotherapy Techniques and Applications
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Counseling Practices and Supervision
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Mental Health Treatment and Access
Keywords
therapist preferences, client perceptions of therapists, treatment outcomes, mental health services, African American clients
MeSH terms
Mental Disorders, Ethnicity, Health Personnel, Humans, Mental Health Services, Professional-Patient Relations, Psychotherapy, Treatment Outcome, Patient Satisfaction, Racial Groups, Cultural Competency

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