Predicting the Outcome of Psychotherapy

Authors:
  • LLLester Luborsky
    Lester Luborsky
  • JMJim Mintz
    Jim Mintz
  • AAArthur Auerbach
    Arthur Auerbach
  • PCPaul Christoph
    Paul Christoph
  • HBHenry Bachrach
    Henry Bachrach
  • TTThomas Todd
    Thomas Todd
  • MJMarilyn Johnson
    Marilyn Johnson
  • MCMarjorie Cohen
    Marjorie Cohen
  • COCharles P. O'Brien
    Charles P. O'Brien
Publisher website
Google Scholar
Abstract
• Our study of predictability of outcomes of psychotherapy used predictions of two kinds: (1) direct predictions by patients, therapists, and clinical observers; and (2) predictive measures derived from the same sources. Seventy-three nonpsychotic patients were treated in psychoanalytically oriented psychotherapy (mean, 44 sessions). Two thirds of the therapists were residents in psychiatry; one third were more experienced. The two main composite outcome measures, measured at termination, were Raw Gain (residualized) and Rated Benefits, which intercorrelated at .76. Most patients improved and showed a considerable range of benefits. The clinical observers' direct predictions of Rated Benefits were highest (.27,P<.05). The success of the predictive measures were generally insignificant, and the best of them were in the .2 to .3 range, meaning that only 5% to 10% of the outcome variance was predicted. The prognostic Index Interview variables did the best (eg, emotional freedom composite, .30; a crossvalidation for 30 patients was.39(P<.05). Neither the therapist measures nor the early psychotherapy session measures predicted significantly. Reanalysis of the similar Chicago Counseling Center study, in our terms, showed a similar low level of prediction success, eg, adequacy of functioning, marital status match, and length of treatment predicted significantly in both studies.

This publication has 15 references indexed in Scilit: