Cited by 112Psychotherapy Techniques and ApplicationsCounseling, Therapy, and Family DynamicsCounseling Practices and Supervision

Meta-analyses of the relation of goal consensus and collaboration to psychotherapy outcome.

Tryon, Georgiana Shick, Birch, Sarah E., Verkuilen, Jay·2018·Psychotherapy

Abstract

This article provides meta-analyses of the relation between goal consensus and collaboration and individual psychotherapy outcome using studies published in English between 1978 and June 2017. Inclusion criteria involved (a) a measure of psychotherapy outcome, (b) a measure of goal consensus and/or collaboration, (c) a group design, (d) adult patients (aged 18 years or older), and (e) a reported effect or statistic that could be converted to an effect size. For the 54 studies (N = 7,278) of goal consensus and outcome, the result was r = .24 (95% confidence interval [CI] [.19, .28]) or d = .49, representing a medium effect. For the 53 studies (N = 5,286) of patient-therapist collaboration and outcome, the result was r = .29 (95% CI [.24, .34]) or d = .61, another medium effect. In all, 21 studies (N = 2,081) of therapist collaboration and outcome yielded an omnibus effect of .26 (95% CI [.18, .35]) or d = .54. Results suggest patient-therapist goal consensus and collaboration enhance psychotherapy outcome. The article concludes with research limitations, diversity considerations, and therapeutic practices. Limitations of the studies included a dearth of diverse samples, assessment of goal consensus and/or collaboration at a single time during treatment, failure to relate measures to outcome, and analyses that do not permit causal conclusions. Research suggests that therapists seek input from patients to form and effect treatment goals and plans, provide patients with regular feedback, and seek their involvement throughout therapy. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2018 APA, all rights reserved).

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/pst0000170

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?

  • Common factors shown to correlate with outcomes include therapeutic alliance, goal consensus and collaboration, and therapist empathy.

    “On the common factors side, widely studied factors shown to correlate with outcomes include therapeutic alliance52, goal consensus and collaboration between therapist and patient66, and therapist empathy67.”

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 90 · Cited by 112

Authors
Tryon, G. S., Birch, S. E., & Verkuilen, J.
Affiliations
  • The Graduate Center, CUNY (US)
  • St. Joseph's College (IN)
Venue
Psychotherapy
Published
2018-12
Volume
55
Issue
4
Pages
372-383
ISSN
  • 0033-3204 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-1536
OpenAlex
W2897427486
Cited by
112
References
90
Citations by year
2026: 16 · 2025: 19 · 2024: 17 · 2023: 17 · 2022: 18 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 4
FWCI
7.34
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Psychotherapy (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychotherapy Techniques and Applications
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Counseling, Therapy, and Family Dynamics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Counseling Practices and Supervision
Keywords
goal consensus, patient-therapist collaboration, psychotherapy outcome, treatment goals, patient involvement in treatment planning, therapist feedback
MeSH terms
Mental Disorders, Cooperative Behavior, Goals, Humans, Professional-Patient Relations, Psychotherapy, Treatment Outcome, Consensus

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