We present a set of evolving guidelines for reviewing qualitative research, to serve four functions: to contribute to the process of legitimizing qualitative research; to ensure more appropriate and valid scientific reviews of qualitative manuscripts, theses, and dissertations; to encourage better quality control in qualitative research through better self- and other-monitoring; and to encourage further developments in approach and method. Building on a review of existing principles of good practice in qualitative research, we used an iterative process of revision and feedback from colleagues who engage in qualitative research, resulting in a set of seven guidelines common to both qualitative and quantitative research and seven guidelines especially pertinent to qualitative investigations in psychology and related social sciences. The Evolving Guidelines are subject to continuing revision and should not be used in a rigid manner, in order to avoid stifling creativity in this rapidly evolving, rich research tradition.

No abstract

No abstract

After defining empathy, discussing its measurement, and offering an example of empathy in practice, we present the results of an updated meta-analysis of the relation between empathy and psychotherapy outcome. Results indicated that empathy is a moderately strong predictor of therapy outcome: mean weighted r = .31 (95% confidence interval: .28 -.34), for 59 independent samples and 3599 clients. Although the empathy-outcome relation held equally for different theoretical orientations, there was considerable nonrandom variability. Client and observer perceptions of therapist empathy predicted outcomes better than therapist perceptions of empathic accuracy measures, and the relation was strongest for less experienced therapists. We conclude with practice recommendations, including endorsing the different forms that empathy may take in therapy.

Despite clear demonstrations by process researchers of systematic differences in therapists' techniques, most reviews of psychotherapy outcome research show little or no differential effectiveness of different psychotherapies. This contradiction presents a dilemma to researchers and practitioners. Numerous possible solutions have been suggested. Some of these challenge the apparent equivalence of outcome, arguing that differential results could be revealed by more sensitive reviewing procedures or by more differentiated outcome measures. Others challenge the seeming differences among treatments, arguing that, despite superficial technical diversity, all or most therapies share a common core of therapeutic processes. Still others suggest that the question of equivalence is unanswerable as it is usually posed but that differential effectiveness of specific techniques might be found at the level of brief events within therapy sessions. In spite of their diversity, many of the proposed solutions converge in calling for greater precision and specificity of theory and method in psychotherapy research.