Why do interpretations account for relatively little variance in treatment outcome?

George Silberschatz
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/cps0000176
2024-03-15
Clinical Psychology Science and Practice
Abstract:Comments on the article by S. Zilcha-Mano et al. (see record 2023-80613-001), which is the first meta-analysis examining the association between interpretations in psychotherapy and treatment outcome. A surprising finding is the weak association between interpretation and therapy outcome. The effect size of .23 found in this meta-analysis is statistically significant but accounts for only 5% of the outcome variance. While this modest effect size is comparable to some psychotherapy variables, there are concepts with far greater impacts. The fact that these are two to three times the effect size of interpretations makes it reasonable to ask: How could a technique so widely regarded as mutative leave 95% of the variance unexplained? There are many possible explanations, but in this comment the author focuses only on three. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved)
psychology, clinical
What problem does this paper attempt to address?