Cited by 63Psychotherapy Techniques and ApplicationsCounseling Practices and SupervisionMental Health Treatment and Access

Predicting therapist effectiveness from their own practice-based evidence.

Kraus, David R., Bentley, Jordan H., Alexander, Pamela C., Boswell, James F., Constantino, Michael J., Baxter, Elizabeth E., Castonguay, Louis G.·2016·Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology

Abstract

Objective Differences between therapists (therapist effect) are often larger than differences between treatments (treatment effect) in explaining client outcomes, and thus should be considered relevant to providing optimal treatment to clients. However, research on therapist effectiveness has focused largely on global measures of distress as opposed to a multidimensional assessment, and has failed to risk-adjust for client characteristics. The purpose of this study was to examine the stability and predictive validity of therapist effectiveness across multiple outcome domains using risk-adjusted outcomes. Method Initial and follow-up outcome data on the Treatment Outcome Package (Kraus, Seligman, & Jordan, 2005) were collected on 3,540 clients who were treated in naturalistic settings by a sample of 59 therapists. After risk-adjusting outcomes based on case-mix variables using random forest models, outcome data from the first 30 clients of each therapist were used to classify each therapist's effectiveness on 12 outcome domains. These results were then compared with outcome data from the therapist's next 30 clients. Results Results demonstrated that therapist effectiveness was relatively stable, although somewhat domain specific. Therapists classified as "exceptional" were significantly more likely to remain above average with future cases, suggesting that a therapist's past performance is an important predictor of their future performance. Conclusions Clients are likely to ex…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/ccp0000083

Cites

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?

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 41 · Cited by 63

Authors
Kraus, D. R., Bentley, J. H., Alexander, P. C., Boswell, J. F., Constantino, M. J., Baxter, E. E., & Castonguay, L. G.
Affiliations
  • University at Albany, State University of New York (US)
  • University of Massachusetts Amherst (US)
  • Pennsylvania State University (US)
Venue
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology
Published
2016-06
Volume
84
Issue
6
Pages
473-483
ISSN
  • 0022-006X (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-2117
OpenAlex
W2398715090
Cited by
63
References
41
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 6
FWCI
11.14
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Annie E. Casey Foundation (212.0369)
  • Duke Endowment (1935-SP)
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 effectiveness, practice-based evidence, risk adjustment, case mix, outcome prediction, naturalistic settings, outcome domains, predictive validity
MeSH terms
Adult, Female, Health Personnel, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Professional-Patient Relations, Psychotherapy, 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