In 1984, Jacobson, Follette, and Revenstorf denned clinically significant change as the extent to which therapy moves someone outside the range of the dysfunctional population or within the range of the functional population. In the present article, ways of operationalizing this definition are described, and examples are used to show how clients can be categorized on the basis of this definition. A reliable change index (RC) is also proposed to determine whether the magnitude of change for a given client is statistically reliable. The inclusion of the RC leads to a twofold criterion for clinically significant change. There has been growing recognition that traditional methods used to evaluate treatment efficacy are problematic (Barlow

Treatment effects are typically inferred on the basis of statistical comparisons between mean changes resulting from the treatments under study. This use of statistical significance tests to evaluate treatment efficacy is limited in at least two respects. First, the tests provide no information on the variability of response to treatment within the sample; yet information regarding within-treatment variability of outcome is of the utmost importance to clinicians.Second, whether a treatment effect exists in the statistical sense has little to do with the clinical significance of the effect. Statistical effects refer

The purpose of this study was to provide an experimental test of the theory of change put forth by A. T. Beck, A. J. Rush, B. F. Shaw, and G. Emery (1979) to explain the efficacy of cognitive-behavioral therapy (CT) for depression. The comparison involved randomly assigning 150 outpatients with major depression to a treatment focused exclusively on the behavioral activation (BA) component of CT, a treatment that included both BA and the teaching of skills to modify automatic thoughts (AT), but excluding the components of CT focused on core schema, or the full CT treatment. Four experienced cognitive therapists conducted all treatments. Despite excellent adherence to treatment protocols by the therapists, a clear bias favoring CT, and the competent performance of CT, there was no evidence that the complete treatment produced better outcomes, at either the termination of acute treatment or the 6-month follow-up, than either component treatment. Furthermore, both BA and AT treatments were just as effective as CT at altering negative thinking as well as dysfunctional attributional styles. Finally, attributional style was highly predictive of both short- and long-term outcomes in the BA condition, but not in the CT condition.

Checklist (RMBPC), a 24-item, caregiver-report measure of observable behavioral problems in dementia patients, provides 1 total score and 3 subscale scores for patient problems (memory-related, depression, and disruptive behaviors) and parallel scores for caregiver reaction. Data were obtained from 201 geriatric patients and their caregivers. Factor analysis confirmed 3 first-order factors, consistent with subscales just named, and 1 general factor of behavioral disturbance. Overall scale reliability was good, with alphas of .84 for patient behavior and .90 for caregiver reaction. Subscale alphas ranged from .67 to .89. Validity was confirmed through comparison of RMBPC scores with well-established indexes of depression, cognitive impairment, and caregiver burden. The RMBPC is recommended as a reliable and valid tool for the clinical and empirical assessment of behavior problems in dementia patients.

No abstract