Cited by 78Psychotherapy Techniques and ApplicationsMeta-analysis and systematic reviewsStatistical Methods in Clinical Trials

Can Psychotherapists Function as Their Own Controls?: Meta-Analysis of the Crossed Therapist Design in Comparative Psychotherapy Trials

Open access
Falkenström, Fredrik, Markowitz,, John C., Jonker, Hanske, Philips, Björn, Holmqvist, Rolf·2013·The Journal of Clinical Psychiatry

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Clinical trials sometimes have the same therapists deliver more than 1 psychotherapy, ostensibly to control for therapist effects. This "crossed therapist" design makes controlling for therapist allegiance imperative, as therapists may prefer one treatment they deliver to the other(s). Research has established a strong relationship between principal investigators' allegiances and treatment outcome. Study therapists' allegiances probably also influence outcome, yet this moderating factor on outcome has never been studied. DATA SOURCES: English language abstracts in PsycINFO and MEDLINE from January 1985 to December 2011 were searched for keywords psychotherapy and randomized trial. STUDY SELECTION: The search yielded 990 abstracts that were searched manually. Trials using the same therapists in more than 1 condition were included. DATA EXTRACTION: Thirty-nine studies fulfilled inclusion criteria. Meta-regression analyses assessed the influence of researchers' allegiance on treatment outcome, testing the hypothesis that studies poorly controlling for therapist allegiance would show stronger influence of researcher allegiance on outcome. A single-item measure assessed researchers' reported attempts to control for therapist allegiance. RESULTS: Only 1 of 39 studies (3%) measured therapist treatment allegiance. Another 5 (13%) mentioned controlling for, without formally assessing, therapist allegiance. Most publications (67%) did not even mention therapist allegiance. In studies not controlling for therapist allegiance, researcher allegiance strongly influenced outcome, whereas studies reporting control for therapist allegiance showed no differential researcher allegiance. Researchers with cognitive-behavioral therapy allegiance described controlling for therapist allegiance less frequently than other researchers. CONCLUSIONS: The crossed therapist design is subject to bias due to differential psychotherapist allegiance. Worrisome results suggest that researchers strongly allied to a treatment may ignore therapist allegiance, potentially skewing outcomes. All clinical trials, and especially crossed therapist designs, should measure psychotherapist allegiance to evaluate this possible bias.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.4088/jcp.12r07848

Cites

63 of 63 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • This bias will be minimized by randomizing patients (and not therapists) to the different treatment conditions in a crossed-therapist design.

    “We will try to minimize this bias by randomizing patients (and not therapists) to the different treatment conditions in a crossed-therapist design (Falkenstrom et al. 2013).”

    From The process-outcome mindfulness effects in trainees (PrOMET) study: Protocol of a pragmatic randomized controlled trial (2015) · cites this paper as Falkenstrom et al. 2013

    The Discussion (page not provided) says randomizing patients helps distribute confounding factors and that crossed therapists might control for some therapist effects. But it also says therapist–treatment confounding remains, particularly when therapists differ in competence or allegiance across treatments. The source therefore does not support an unqualified expectation that this design will minimize therapist bias. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • A crossed-therapist design, in which a given therapist delivers the experimental and control conditions, includes specific limitations such as the increased problem of allegiance effects.

    “This design includes specific limitations (e.g., the increased problem of allegiance effects (Falkenstrom et al. 2013)), but will be necessary to conduct the study in routine care.”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Falkenström, F., Markowitz, Jonker, H., Philips, B., & Holmqvist, R.
Affiliations
  • Linköping University (SE)
  • New York State Psychiatric Institute (US)
  • Utrecht University (NL)
Corresponding author
Falkenström, Fredrik
Venue
The Journal of Clinical Psychiatry
Published
2012-10-30
Volume
74
Issue
05
Pages
482-491
ISSN
0160-6689 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2055805583
Cited by
78
References
59
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 2
FWCI
6.16
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • The Journal of Clinical Psychiatry (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
National Institute of Mental Health (R01MH079078, MH-079078)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychotherapy Techniques and Applications
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials
Keywords
cognitive behavioral therapy, meta-regression, randomized controlled trials
MeSH terms
Workforce, Humans, Psychotherapy, Research Design, Bias, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic

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