Predicting therapist effectiveness from their own practice-based evidence.
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
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Longitudinal research demonstrates that a therapist's past clinical performance in improving outcomes is strongly predictive of future performance.
“Longitudinal research also demonstrates that a therapist’s past clinical performance in improving outcomes is strongly predictive of future performance.22”
From Using Machine Learning to Match Clients and Therapy Providers: Evaluating Clinical Quality and Cost of Care (2025) · cites this paper as [22]
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