CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 91Psychotherapy Techniques and ApplicationsMeta-analysis and systematic reviewsPsychology Research and Bibliometrics

Testing the allegiance bias hypothesis: a meta-analysis

Munder, Thomas, Gerger, Heike, Trelle, Sven, Barth, Jürgen·2011·Psychotherapy Research
DOI 10.1080/10503307.2011.602752
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

This meta-analysis investigated whether the association between researcher allegiance (RA) and the relative effect of two psychotherapies can be explained through the methodological weaknesses of the treatment comparisons. Seventy-nine comparisons of psychotherapies for depression or posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) were included. Methodological quality (MQ) was investigated as both a moderator and a mediator of the RA-outcome association. MQ included balanced nonspecific factors, balanced specific factors, conceptual quality, patients-per-therapist ratio, randomization to conditions and outcome assessment. The RA-outcome association was stronger when the MQ was low, suggesting a buffering effect of MQ. In addition, differences in the conceptual quality of treatments mediated the effect of RA on outcome. The results support the view that RA acts as a bias in treatment comparisons.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/10503307.2011.602752

Cites

109 of 109 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?

  • There is some evidence that researcher allegiance is associated with risk of bias.

    “There is some evidence that allegiance is indeed associated with the risk of bias (Munder et al. 2011), and it may be the case that allegiance is a problem only in studies with a high risk of bias and not in those with a low risk of bias.”

    From The Role of Common Factors in Psychotherapy Outcomes (2019) · cites this paper as Munder et al. 2011

  • It may be the case that researcher allegiance is a problem only in studies with a high risk of bias and not in those with a low risk of bias.

    “There is some evidence that allegiance is indeed associated with the risk of bias (Munder et al. 2011), and it may be the case that allegiance is a problem only in studies with a high risk of bias and not in those with a low risk of bias.”

    From The Role of Common Factors in Psychotherapy Outcomes (2019) · cites this paper as Munder et al. 2011

  • Three of the authors were involved in treatment design, conduct, and evaluation, which might have heightened the risk of allegiance bias.

    “Finally, three of the authors of this trial were involved in treatment design, conduct, and evaluation, which might have heightened the risk of allegiance bias [40].”

    From Blended care in in-patient acute psychiatric care. The example of a group training for social competences in adults—A pretest–posttest feasibility study (2021) · cites this paper as [40]

  • A recent network meta-analysis of 81 trials found that initiating the treatment of a depressive episode with psychotherapy, alone or added to pharmacotherapy, may increase substantially the chances of getting well and staying well for up to a year by 12-16 percentage points compared with initiating the treatment with drugs only.

    “A recent network meta-analysis of 81 trials found that initiating the treatment of a depressive episode with psychotherapy, alone or added to pharmacotherapy, may increase substantially the chances of getting well and staying well for up to a year by 12-16 percentage points compared with initiating the treatment with drugs only. 552”

    From Time for united action on depression: a Lancet–World Psychiatric Association Commission (2022) · cites this paper as [552]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Munder, T., Gerger, H., Trelle, S., & Barth, J.
Affiliations
  • University of Bern
  • University of Bern (CH)
ORCID
Venue
Psychotherapy Research
Publisher
Informa UK Limited
Published
2011-07-28
Volume
21
Issue
6
Pages
670-684
ISSN
  • 1050-3307 (ISSN-L)
  • 1468-4381
DOI
10.1080/10503307.2011.602752
OpenAlex
W2037232937
Cited by
91
References
108
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 12 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 8 · 2012: 4
FWCI
0.78
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Psychotherapy Research (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • EUR Research Repository (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (publishedVersion)
  • EUR Research Repository (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (submittedVersion)
  • BORIS (University Library Bern) (submittedVersion)
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
psychotherapy outcome research, methodological quality, depression, post-traumatic stress disorder, randomization, outcome measurement
MeSH terms
Adult, Depressive Disorder, Humans, Psychotherapy, Research Personnel, Stress Disorders, Post-Traumatic, Bias, 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