CONTACT US: Contact info
|
Citation |
Brown J. Clin. Psychol. Rev. 1987; 7(1): 1-23. |
|
Copyright |
(Copyright © 1987, Elsevier Publishing) |
|
DOI |
unavailable |
PMID |
unavailable |
|
Abstract |
Meta-analysis is a newly developed means of reviewing large collections of literature concerning any general topic which has been subjected to empirical study. It is a quantitative approach which relies upon the numerical aggregation of many studies to draw conclusions about the topic under scrutiny. It is often considered to be less prone to the subtle biases which may be inevitably present in more traditional qualitative literature reviews. To date, six meta-analyses have been published using the psychotherapy outcome research: Smith and Glass (1977); Smith, Glass, and Miller (1980); Landman and Dawes (1982); Miller and Berman (1983); Shapiro and Shapiro (1982); and Prioleau, Murdoch, and Brody (1983). The major issue addressed by all six meta-analyses is the efficacy, or lack thereof, of psychotherapy in general, and the differential effectiveness of some schools of therapy as compared to other schools. Following a brief review of these studies, general criticisms of the meta-analytic technique are offered, with references made to those studies which best exemplify these faults. Conclusions and implications are drawn about both the meta-analytic strategy itself, and the lessons which have been learned about the practice of psychotherapy from these quantitative reviews. Suggestions for resolving persistent meta-analytic problems and for future research directions in psychotherapy are also offered. (Abstract Adapted from Source: Clinical Psychology Review, 1987. Copyright © 1987 by Elsevier Science) |