4.4 Review

Empirically Supported Principles of Change in Youth Psychotherapy: Exploring Codability, Frequency of Use, and Meta-Analytic Findings

Journal

CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE
Volume 11, Issue 2, Pages 326-344

Publisher

SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.1177/21677026221120230

Keywords

systematic evidence reviews; therapeutic change processes; youth psychotherapy

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Intervention scientists have proposed the use of empirically supported principles of change (ESPCs) in psychotherapies, and this study examines their effects in youth psychotherapies. The findings indicate that ESPCs can be reliably identified, with most psychotherapies including less than three ESPCs. However, treatments with all five ESPCs show effects about twice as large as treatments with fewer ESPCs.
Intervention scientists have proposed a focus on empirically supported principles of change (ESPCs) in psychotherapies. We explored this proposition as applied to youth psychotherapies, focusing on five candidate ESPCs-calming, increasing motivation, changing unhelpful thoughts, solving problems, and practicing positive opposites. We synthesized 348 treatment-control comparisons from 263 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) spanning six decades, testing treatments for anxiety, depression, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, and conduct problems. We found that ESPCs could be reliably identified and distinguished by independent coders and that psychotherapies most often included fewer than three ESPCs. However, across the entire study pool and the anxiety subsample, when we controlled for dose, treatments with all five ESPCs showed effects about twice as large as treatments with fewer ESPCs. The findings suggest that ESPCs are reliably identifiable, that they are associated with variations in treatment effect size, and that treatments containing more ESPCs may produce greater therapeutic benefit.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available