Cited by 79Psychotherapy Techniques and ApplicationsMeta-analysis and systematic reviewsPosttraumatic Stress Disorder Research

Is the allegiance effect an epiphenomenon of true efficacy differences between treatments? A meta-analysis.

Munder, Thomas, Flückiger, Christoph, Gerger, Heike, Wampold, Bruce E., Barth, Jürgen·2012·Journal of Counseling Psychology

Abstract

Many meta-analyses of comparative outcome studies found a substantial association of researcher allegiance (RA) and relative treatment effects. Therefore, RA is regarded as a biasing factor in comparative outcome research (RA bias hypothesis). However, the RA bias hypothesis has been criticized as causality might be reversed. That is, RA might be a reflection of true efficacy differences between treatments (true efficacy hypothesis). Consequently, the RA-outcome association would not be indicative of bias but an epiphenomenon of true efficacy differences. This meta-analysis tested the validity of the true efficacy hypothesis. This was done by controlling the RA-outcome association for true efficacy differences by restricting analysis to direct comparisons of treatments with equivalent efficacy. We included direct comparisons of different versions of trauma-focused therapy (TFT) in the treatment of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). RA was measured from the research reports. Relative effect sizes for symptoms of PTSD were calculated. Random effects meta-regression was conducted. Twenty-nine comparisons of TFTs from 20 studies were identified. Initial heterogeneity among relative effect sizes was low. RA was a significant predictor of outcome and explained 12% of the variance in outcomes. The true efficacy hypothesis predicted the RA-outcome association to be zero; however, a substantial association was found. Thus, this study does not support the true efficacy hypothesis. Given findings from psychotherapy research and other fields that support a biasing influence of researcher preferences, RA should be regarded as a causal factor and conceptualized as a threat to the validity of conclusions from comparative outcome studies.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/a0029571

Cites

47 of 47 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
Munder, T., Flückiger, C., Gerger, H., Wampold, B. E., & Barth, J.
Affiliations
  • University of Zurich (CH)
  • University of Bern (CH)
  • University of Wisconsin–Madison (US)
Venue
Journal of Counseling Psychology
Published
2012
Volume
59
Issue
4
Pages
631-637
ISSN
  • 0022-0167 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-2168
OpenAlex
W2032387399
Cited by
79
References
46
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 6
FWCI
7.24
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Counseling Psychology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • EUR Research Repository (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (publishedVersion)
  • Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich) (acceptedVersion)
  • EUR Research Repository (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (submittedVersion)
  • Bern Open Repository and Information System (University of Bern) (submittedVersion)
  • Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Swiss National Science Foundation (105314-118312/1)
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 › Clinical Psychology › Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Research
Keywords
relative treatment effect, post-traumatic stress disorder, trauma-focused psychotherapy
MeSH terms
Humans, Interprofessional Relations, Psychotherapy, Regression Analysis, Research Personnel, Stress Disorders, Post-Traumatic, Bias, Causality, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Comparative Effectiveness 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