“Between-group psychotherapy outcome research and basic science” revisited

Krause, Merton S.; Howard, Kenneth I.

doi:10.1002/(sici)1097-4679(199902)55:2<159::aid-jclp3>3.0.co;2-n

Cited by 20 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Not surprisingly, how to understand and/or measure what is going on in a group challenges any research design (see for example, discussions of methodological problems in researching groupwork in Nietzel et al, 1987;Bloch, 1988;Krause and Howard, 1999;Edmonds et al, 1999;Westbury and Tutty, 1999;Borkovec and Miranda, 1999;McKenzie, 2001;Kanas, 2001). Issues of Fiona McDermott particular signifi cance include questions about research designswhether process or outcome is to be studied, whether comparisons between individual and group interventions are more revealing of benefi ts and limitations, how participants can be followed up, the multiple variables which may infl uence outcome (group leader and group participant characteristics, the severity of problems which bring people to a group, the motivation of participants, the social support available to them, etc.…”

Section: Researching Groups: Issues Facing Researchersmentioning

confidence: 99%

Researching groupwork

McDermott¹

2005

Groupwork

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The focus of this paper is on providing a frame for developing research designs for groupwork practice. Two designs are described-one referring to the researcher who adopts an 'outside' location, and the other for an 'insider' or researcher-group-work-practitioner. Issues of epistemology, methodology, ethics and methods are raised, as are considerations of existing gaps in research knowledge. Practitioners and researchers are encouraged to think more creatively about the kinds of methods which could be used when approaching such a dynamic, complex and fascinating subject as the workings and benefi ts of group participation.

show abstract

Section: Researching Groups: Issues Facing Researchersmentioning

confidence: 99%

Researching groupwork

McDermott¹

2005

Groupwork

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Early-treatment development research designs often begin with a combination of identifiable treatment components that are applied to a particular problem. There are many suggestions, sometimes conflicting in precise goals, about how best to approach psychotherapy research (cf., Beutler & Karno, 1999;Donenberg, 1999;Follette, 1995;Follette & Compton, 1996;Krause & Howard, 1999;Pilkonis & Krause, 1999), but the point is that it is possible to move toward the goal of identifying mechanisms of change in various therapies.…”

Section: What Treatment Using What Principles?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Adding a more Rigorous Scientific Agenda to the Empirically Supported Treatment Movement

Follette

Beitz

2003

Behav Modif

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

As the empirically supported treatment (EST) effort has expanded, there are efforts to make the study of ESTs a more integral part of training programs. In its present form, the EST list provides a poor model of how to evaluate treatment and scientific issues related to our field. This article offer several suggestions regarding how to establish a more relevant scientific agenda for the committee's work if the study of ESTs is to usefully influence training programs. Recommendations are made to encourage programs and the CSP to study mechanisms of change, important contextual variables for therapy delivery, the distinction between statistical significance and clinical meaningfulness, dissemination, cost-effectiveness, and iatrogenic effects. It is argued that any program that created a curriculum educating students to thoughtfully address these issues when evaluating therapies would be producing sound clinical scientists regardless of the quality of the EST list itself.

show abstract

“…How to capture and understand what is going on in a group challenges any research design (see for example, discussions of methodological problems in researching group work in Nietzel et al . 1987; Bloch 1988; Borkovec & Miranda 1999; Krause & Howard 1999; Westbury & Tutty 1999; Kanas 2001; MacKenzie 2001).…”

Section: Researching Group Work In Mental Healthmentioning

confidence: 99%

Group work in the mental health field: researching outcome

McDermott¹

2003

Australian Social Work

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper reviews outcome studies from groups facilitated for persons living with serious mental illness. Although the research base is limited (groups posing considerable methodological challenges), available studies show that, in general, group work is as effective as individual work, if not more so. This paper describes findings from studies of short‐term, long‐term and self‐help groups dealing with mood disorders, schizophrenia, eating disorders and borderline personality disorders over the last 10 years. The concept of ‘time‐effective’ group work is discussed as are the potentially harmful effects of group participation. The paper concludes by arguing that group work is an effective and less expensive treatment option that would benefit from further research to establish an evidence base, both for current practice and for the expansion of group work practice in the future.

show abstract

“Between-group psychotherapy outcome research and basic science” revisited

Cited by 20 publications

References 9 publications

Researching groupwork

Researching groupwork

Adding a more Rigorous Scientific Agenda to the Empirically Supported Treatment Movement

Group work in the mental health field: researching outcome

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About