The effectiveness of psychotherapy. The Consumer Reports study.
The effectiveness of psychotherapy. The Consumer Reports study.
复制标题
心理治疗的有效性。
DOI：
10.1037//0003-066x.50.12.965
复制
发表时间：
1995
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Seligman,ME
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Seligman,ME
《消费者报告》（1995年11月）发表了一篇文章，得出的结论是，患者从心理治疗中受益匪浅，长期治疗比短期治疗效果好得多，而且单独的心理治疗与药物治疗的效果没有什么不同心理治疗。此外，没有哪种特定的心理治疗方式对任何疾病的治疗效果比其他任何一种都好;心理学家、精神病学家和社会工作者在治疗效果上没有差异;所有人都比婚姻咨询师和长期家庭医生做得更好。那些治疗时间或治疗师选择受到保险或管理式护理限制的患者表现更差。这种大规模调查的方法的优点和缺点进行检查，并与更传统的疗效研究，其中患者被随机分为手动，固定持续时间的治疗或对照组进行对比。我的结论是，消费者报告调查补充了功效方法，这两种方法的最佳特征可以结合成一种更理想的方法，最好地提供心理治疗的经验验证。（PsycINFO数据库记录（c）2020阿帕，保留所有权利）
Consumer Reports (1995, November) published an article which concluded that patients benefitted very substantially from psychotherapy, that long-term treatment did considerably better than short-term treatment, and that psychotherapy alone did not differ in effectiveness from medication plus psychotherapy. Furthermore, no specific modality of psychotherapy did better than any other for any disorder; psychologists, psychiatrists, and social workers did not differ in their effectiveness as treaters; and all did better than marriage counselors and long-term family doctoring. Patients whose length of therapy or choice of therapist was limited by insurance or managed care did worse. The methodological virtues and drawbacks of this large-scale survey are examined and contrasted with the more traditional efficacy study, in which patients are randomized into a manualized, fixed duration treatment or into control groups. I conclude that the Consumer Reports survey complements the efficacy method, and that the best features of these two methods can be combined into a more ideal method that will best provide empirical validation of psychotherapy.(PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved)