CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 572Psychotherapy Techniques and ApplicationsMeta-analysis and systematic reviewsPsychology Research and Bibliometrics

The researcher's own therapy allegiances: A "wild card" in comparisons of treatment efficacy.

Luborsky, Lester, Diguer, Louis, Seligman, David A., Rosenthal, Robert, Krause, Elizabeth D., Johnson, Suzanne, Halperin, Gregory, Bishop, Monica +2 more·1999·Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice
DOI 10.1093/clipsy.6.1.95
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

This report examines a possible distortion in the results of comparative treatment studies due to the association of the researcher's treatment allegiances with outcomes of those treatments. In eight past reviews a trend appeared for significant associations between the researcher's allegiance and outcomes of treatments compared. In a new review of 29 studies of treatment comparisons, a similar trend appeared. Allegiance ratings were based not only on the usual reprint method, but also on two new methods: ratings by colleagues who knew the researcher well, and self-ratings by the researchers themselves. The two new allegiance methods Interco related only moderately, but each allegiance measure correlated significantly with outcomes of the treatments compared, and when combined, the three measures explained 69% of the variance in outcomes Such an association can distort comparative treatment results. Our report concludes with how the researcher's allegiance may become associated with treatment outcomes and how studies should deal with these associations.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/clipsy.6.1.95

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 finding that participants at USU found ACT more believable than ERP provides additional support for the view that therapist or researcher allegiance plays an important role in patients' perception of a given treatment.

    “Given that the researchers at USU specialize in ACT based treatments, this provides additional support for the view that therapist (or researcher) allegiance plays an important role in a patients’ perception of a given treatment (Luborsky et al., 1999).”

    From A Comparison of Two Brief Interventions for Obsessional Thoughts: Exposure and Acceptance. (2013) · cites this paper as Luborsky et al., 1999

No citation lists for this paper

No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.

References 43 · Cited by 572

Authors
Luborsky, L., Diguer, L., Seligman, D. A., Rosenthal, R., Krause, E. D., Johnson, S., Halperin, G., Bishop, M., Berman, J. S., & Schweizer, E.
Affiliations
  • University of Pennsylvania (US)
  • Université Laval (CA)
  • Boston University (US)
  • Harvard University (US)
  • Duke University (US)
  • Temple University (US)
  • Pennsylvania State University (US)
  • University of Memphis (US)
ORCID
Diguer, Louis
Venue
Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice
Publisher
American Psychological Association (APA)
Published
1999
Volume
6
Issue
1
Pages
95-106
ISSN
  • 0969-5893 (ISSN-L)
  • 1468-2850
DOI
10.1093/clipsy.6.1.95
OpenAlex
W2128291364
Cited by
572
References
43
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 16 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 20 · 2019: 13 · 2018: 15 · 2017: 25 · 2016: 28 · 2015: 36 · 2014: 27 · 2013: 37 · 2012: 24
FWCI
15.78
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
doi.wiley.com/10.1002/tdm_license_1.1 (tdm, 6087 d)
Locations
Clinical Psychology Science and Practice (publishedVersion)
Funders
National Institute of Mental Health
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
treatment efficacy

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