The Great Psychotherapy Debate: Models, Methods, and Findings comprehensively reviews the research on psychotherapy to dispute the commonly held view that the benefits of psychotherapy are derived from the specific ingredients contained in a given treatment (medical model). The author reviews the literature related to the absolute efficacy of psychotherapy, the relative efficacy of various treatments, the specificity of ingredients contained in established therapies, effects due to common factors, such as the working alliance, adherence and allegiance to the therapeutic protocol, and effects that are produced by different therapists. In each case, the evidence convincingly corroborates the contextual model and disconfirms the prevailing medical model.
Table of Contents
Contents: Foreword. Preface. Competing Meta-Models: The Medical Model Versus the Contextual Model. Differential Hypotheses and Evidentiary Rules. Absolute Efficacy: The Benefits of Psychotherapy Established by Meta-Analysis. Relative Efficacy: The Dodo Bird Was Smarter Than We Have Been Led to Believe. Specific Effects: Weak Empirical Evidence That Benefits of Psychotherapy Are Derived From Specific Ingredients. General Effects: The Alliance as a Case in Point. Allegiance and Adherence: Further Evidence for the Contextual Model. Therapist Effects: An Ignored but Critical Factor. Implications of Rejecting the Medical Model.