FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2003999925> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2003999925 endingPage "328" @default.
• W2003999925 startingPage "323" @default.
• W2003999925 abstract "Abstract The dodo-bird verdict has haunted the literature on psychotherapy outcome since its early beginnings. It is based on the counter-intuitive finding that often highly diverging treatments do not differ much in effectiveness. There is evidence that much of the common effect of different treatments can be related to unspecific factors as opposed to treatment-specific techniques. The present paper offers a short behavior analytic reflection on contemporary directions concerning effective therapeutic relationships. It suggests that the idiographic vision inherent in functional analysis may point at an alternative avenue for psychotherapy outcome research that is entirely different from those on empirically supported treatments and empirically supported relationships, and that this third direction may shed more light on the question as to what determines therapeutic change. Key-words: Dodo-bird verdict; Empirically supported therapies; Therapeutic relationship; Functional Analytic Psychotherapy. ********** Since the advent of research on the effectiveness of specific treatments for specific disorders (Eysenck, 1952; Chambless, 1996) therapy advanced tremendously and it seems it will never be the same again. As a result of this work, the well-trained therapist of today, confronting a client with this or that particular disorder will be able to choose and implement the treatment-package that will most probably be helpful. The bottom line is that a treatment that has been shown most helpful in studies for clients with a specific problem and specific characteristics, will be the most indicated treatment for a client one will meet in one's office with that same problem and those same characteristics. Critics of this development have been prolific. It has been pointed out that technique-driven protocols cannot consider the complexity of the therapeutic process and that the ecologic validity of the controlled studies is weak because the therapy settings in clinical practice vary widely (Garfield, 1996; Goldfried & Wolfe, 1996; 1998; Bohart, 2000). The Dodo-Bird Verdict Metanalyses (e.g. Smith, Glass & Miller, 1980; Wampold, et al., 1997; Luborsky et al., 2002) tend to corroborate Rozenzweig's (1936) verdict that everybody has won and must have prizes, a line taken from the Dodo-bird in Lewis Caroll's Alice's Adventures in Wonderland. That very dissimilar interventions have similar effects diminished the seeming importance of specific techniques. The Dodo-bird verdict came to evoke in specialists at least three standard types of reaction. A first type consists in pointing out that the meta-analyses don't permit disqualifying the effects of techniques and that it is more ethical to use techniques that have empirical support than to speculate about unspecific variables. Continued controlled studies are necessary to show what variables or interactions contribute to therapeutic changes (Eysenck, 1994; Chambless, 2002). A second type of reaction points at unspecific variables as holding the major promise for explaining what makes therapy work (Bohart, 2000; Messer & Wampold, 2002). The therapeutic encounter in itself can have an important effect on the client and the therapist as a person makes a difference. Characteristics of the relationship compete with specific techniques as possible explanations of why therapies work. They are often common to many different treatments, and have enough empirical support to give them a place alongside specific techniques in models about the active ingredients of therapy. Efforts to identify core relationship variables have been examined by a task force of the American Psychological Association's division 29 and reviewed in a book organized by Norcross (2002). These empirically supported relationships are aspects of the way in which client and therapist interact, that research has been able to relate favorably to treatment outcome or process. …" @default.
• W2003999925 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2003999925 creator A5002520342 @default.
• W2003999925 creator A5030864607 @default.
• W2003999925 date "2005-01-01" @default.
• W2003999925 modified "2023-09-26" @default.
• W2003999925 title "The dodo-bird debate, empirically supported relationships and functional analytic psychotherapy." @default.
• W2003999925 cites W1891977032 @default.
• W2003999925 cites W1972279079 @default.
• W2003999925 cites W1994794734 @default.
• W2003999925 cites W1997415161 @default.
• W2003999925 cites W2003971673 @default.
• W2003999925 cites W2008840071 @default.
• W2003999925 cites W2020751924 @default.
• W2003999925 cites W2029879986 @default.
• W2003999925 cites W2032780782 @default.
• W2003999925 cites W2037013773 @default.
• W2003999925 cites W2043804108 @default.
• W2003999925 cites W2059040396 @default.
• W2003999925 cites W2065456334 @default.
• W2003999925 cites W2083835461 @default.
• W2003999925 cites W2094838887 @default.
• W2003999925 cites W2109751816 @default.
• W2003999925 cites W2121849176 @default.
• W2003999925 cites W2132896015 @default.
• W2003999925 cites W2140498639 @default.
• W2003999925 cites W2146133020 @default.
• W2003999925 cites W2155478650 @default.
• W2003999925 cites W2155568730 @default.
• W2003999925 cites W2950063674 @default.
• W2003999925 cites W3021099141 @default.
• W2003999925 cites W388481709 @default.
• W2003999925 cites W571049220 @default.
• W2003999925 cites W613861051 @default.
• W2003999925 cites W2057382387 @default.
• W2003999925 doi "https://doi.org/10.1037/h0100756" @default.
• W2003999925 hasPublicationYear "2005" @default.
• W2003999925 type Work @default.
• W2003999925 sameAs 2003999925 @default.
• W2003999925 citedByCount "6" @default.
• W2003999925 countsByYear W20039999252012 @default.
• W2003999925 countsByYear W20039999252017 @default.
• W2003999925 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2003999925 hasAuthorship W2003999925A5002520342 @default.
• W2003999925 hasAuthorship W2003999925A5030864607 @default.
• W2003999925 hasConcept C15744967 @default.
• W2003999925 hasConcept C2780043985 @default.
• W2003999925 hasConcept C542102704 @default.
• W2003999925 hasConceptScore W2003999925C15744967 @default.
• W2003999925 hasConceptScore W2003999925C2780043985 @default.
• W2003999925 hasConceptScore W2003999925C542102704 @default.
• W2003999925 hasIssue "4" @default.
• W2003999925 hasLocation W20039999251 @default.
• W2003999925 hasOpenAccess W2003999925 @default.
• W2003999925 hasPrimaryLocation W20039999251 @default.
• W2003999925 hasRelatedWork W1967340291 @default.
• W2003999925 hasRelatedWork W1984799467 @default.
• W2003999925 hasRelatedWork W2005036727 @default.
• W2003999925 hasRelatedWork W2043800209 @default.
• W2003999925 hasRelatedWork W2068667031 @default.
• W2003999925 hasRelatedWork W2087388673 @default.
• W2003999925 hasRelatedWork W2312847061 @default.
• W2003999925 hasRelatedWork W2316107147 @default.
• W2003999925 hasRelatedWork W2605803846 @default.
• W2003999925 hasRelatedWork W3194730550 @default.
• W2003999925 hasVolume "1" @default.
• W2003999925 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2003999925 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2003999925 magId "2003999925" @default.
• W2003999925 workType "article" @default.