Cited by 170Psychotherapy Techniques and ApplicationsMeta-analysis and systematic reviewsPsychology Research and Bibliometrics

Allegiance in psychotherapy outcome research: Separating association from bias.

Leykin, Yan, DeRubeis, Robert J.·2009·Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice

Abstract

Concern about the contamination of psychotherapy outcome studies by “allegiance bias”—distortion of findings because of investigators’ preferences—has led to the proposal that findings to date should not be used to make inferences about the relative efficacies of psychotherapies. It has also been proposed that results from all such studies should be adjusted to cancel the presumed distorting effects of allegiances. We argue that although much effort has been devoted towards establishing the existence of statistical associations between allegiances and outcomes, the causal implication—that investigators’ allegiances influence results—has gone virtually untested. We present a new vocabulary with the aim of sharpening the allegiance discourse, and we propose that research strategies markedly different from the ones used to date are needed to address some of the more serious limitations of allegiance bias research.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1468-2850.2009.01143.x

Cites

45 of 45 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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Leykin, Y., & DeRubeis, R. J.
Affiliations
  • University of California, San Francisco (US)
  • University of Pennsylvania (US)
Venue
Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice
Published
2009-03
Volume
16
Issue
1
Pages
54-65
ISSN
  • 0969-5893 (ISSN-L)
  • 1468-2850
OpenAlex
W2131433388
Cited by
170
References
45
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 42 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 15 · 2015: 12 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 13 · 2012: 7
FWCI
7.08
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Clinical Psychology Science and Practice (publishedVersion)
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, investigator bias, causal inference, bias correction

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