Cited by 19Psychotherapy Techniques and ApplicationsMeta-analysis and systematic reviewsPsychology Research and Bibliometrics

The sleeper effect: Artifact or phenomenon—A brief comment on Bell et al. (2013).

Flückiger, Christoph, Del Re, A. C., Wampold, Bruce E.·2015·Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Bell, Marcus, and Goodlad (2013) recently conducted a meta-analysis of randomized controlled additive trials and found that adding an additional component to an existing treatment vis-à-vis the existing treatment produced larger effect sizes on targeted outcomes at 6-months follow-up than at termination, an effect they labeled as a sleeper effect. One of the limitations with Bell et al.'s detection of the sleeper effect was that they did not conduct a statistical test of the size of the effect at follow-up versus termination. METHOD: To statistically test if the differences of effect sizes between the additive conditions and the control conditions at follow-up differed from those at termination, we used a restricted maximum-likelihood random-effect model with known variances to conduct a multilevel longitudinal meta-analysis (k = 30). RESULTS: Although the small effects at termination detected by Bell et al. were replicated (ds = 0.17-0.23), none of the analyses of growth from termination to follow-up produced statistically significant effects (ds < 0.08; p > .20), and when asymmetry was considered using trim-and-fill procedure or the studies after 2000 were analyzed, magnitude of the sleeper effect was negligible (d = 0.00). CONCLUSION: There is no empirical evidence to support the sleeper effect. (PsycINFO Database Record

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/a0037220

Cites

17 of 17 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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?

  • A reanalysis using longitudinal meta-analytical methods could not replicate the finding that the effects of components were found in the long term.

    “A reanalysis using longitudinal meta-analytical methods could not replicate the finding that the effects of components were found in the long term (Flückiger et al. 2015, Wampold & Imel 2015).”

    From The Role of Common Factors in Psychotherapy Outcomes (2019) · cites this paper as Flückiger et al. 2015

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Flückiger, C., Del Re, A. C., & Wampold, B. E.
Affiliations
University of Wisconsin–Madison (US)
Venue
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology
Published
2015-04
Volume
83
Issue
2
Pages
438-442
ISSN
  • 0022-006X (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-2117
OpenAlex
W2036246370
Cited by
19
References
17
Citations by year
2024: 3 · 2022: 3 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 1
FWCI
3.73
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich) (acceptedVersion)
  • BORIS (University Library Bern) (submittedVersion)
  • Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Swiss Science National Foundation (PZ00P1_136937)
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
sleeper effect, treatment effects over time, publication bias
MeSH terms
Humans, Models, Psychological, Treatment Outcome

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