Is the Use of Interpretations Associated With Treatment Outcome? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analytic Answer

Sigal Zilcha-Mano, John R. Keefe, Hadar Fisher, Tohar Dolev-Amit, Nirit Veler-Poleg, Jacques P. Barber

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Abstract

Interpretation is the doyen of therapeutic techniques and has received some of the greatest theoretical and clinical attention. Nevertheless, to date, no meta-analysis has examined its effect on psychotherapy outcome. In the present systematic reviewand meta-analysis, we examined the association between interpretations and psychotherapy outcome. The meta-analysis was preregistered in PROSPERO. From 13,195 initially identified abstracts, we extracted 16 independent effect sizes from a total of 897 patients. Findings suggest a medium effect size (r=−.23, p =.002), indicating that the use of interpretations is associated with better outcome. This association remains consistent across types of interpretation measures, assessor perspectives, study quality, and number of sessions. Sensitivity analyses demonstrated the robustness of the results.

Original languageAmerican English
Pages (from-to)1-13
Number of pages13
JournalClinical Psychology: Science and Practice
Volume31
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - 15 Jun 2023

Keywords

  • interpretations
  • meta-analysis
  • psychodynamic treatment
  • transference

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Clinical Psychology

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Is the Use of Interpretations Associated With Treatment Outcome? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analytic Answer'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this