Common Factors

Recently there has been an emphasis on common factors, ie meta-analysis by Lambent, claiming that technique only accounts for 17% of treatment outcome and relationship and extratherapeutic factors accounting for the rest. I find this laughable. To do an meta-analysis and come out with relationship as being so important presumes that the research could operationalize the term relationship and that all the studies over 40 some years would have the same "operational definition". Add to that the notion of punctuation. Relationship can be puctuated as a type of technique. That is relationship is a reification of the process of relating. How you specifically relate to a person can be punctated as a technique. Anything done in a session can be a "technique" Another thought, if a person has a phobia you can "relate" ala person centered type counseling all you want for as long as you want but unless you help them to eliminate their response to the phobic stimulus with a type of new assoication they ain't going to get over the phobia. I believe the point of the research is to get people to focus more on relating with their clients and help clients to use their resources but to try and quantify this as "common factors" is a complete joke. The statistics are normative and thus ignore the outliers. What about really good therapists.

Replies:

Re:Common Factors, by Seer, 09/24/02 Re:Common Factors, by Steve Lankton, 10/02/02 THE ART OF CONSCIOUS AND SUBCONSCIOUS PROGRAMMING, by Seer, 10/08/02 Re:Common Factors, by Sandy, 10/02/02 Re:Common Factors, by Seer, 10/09/02 Re:Common Factors, by Sandy, 10/14/02 Re:Common Factors, by Carlos J. Sanchez, 10/19/02 Re:Common Factors, by Carlos J. Sanchez, 10/19/02

| Behavior OnLine Home Page | Disclaimer |

Copyright © 1996-2004 Behavior OnLine, Inc. All rights reserved.