Predicting the outcomes of treatment.

Abstract

iscussion which follows is based upon a research study undertaken by augurated in the fall of 1935, the clinic differed somewhat from its present organization. Operating as a Child Study Department of the Rochester Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Children, we were then engaged in making psychological studies, chiefly diagnostic in nature, of problem children referred by the social agencies in the community, including the Children's Court. In each case, social treatment was carefully planned in conference with the interested agencies. ,Although we participated in the treatment of some children, we made no systematic attempt to evaluate progress in each case. Our research was therefore prompted by a very real and practical need, commonly felt by diagnosticians, to learn the outcomes of the treatment we had helped to plan.The project, in brief, called for a follow-up analysis of a typical group of o u r cases t w o years after the initial diagnostic study. As we wanted to evaluate our work as a whole, rather than an isolated phase of it, no essential feature of the case material was ignored. We hoped to examine simultaneously the carrying out of treatment plans, changes in the child's environment, the resolution of his problems, the accuracy of our predictive thinking, and the interplay between these several factors. I n a standardized form, the clinician recorded a full account of each diagnostic study while it was in progress. With appropriate modification the same recording procedures were followed when the case was reevaluated two years later. In compiling the second report, the clinician did not refer to the original data. Thus we are able to compare two independent records on each child. An effort was made to express the case material in terms that could be handled statistically. In this our aim was not precise measurement, but objectivity and convenience in estimating the intangible verities of "adjustment" and "progress." The present statement deals with the verification of our prognoses. In a subsequent paper, the findings are analyzed in relation to problem syndromes.'The experimental subjects were 200 children from 3 to 18 years of age. Except for the arbitrary exclusion of children referred from institutions and those who presented no personal problems, they were a representative sample of the clinic's clientele. The attributes of the group will sound familiar to many a clinician. Boys outnumbered girls two to one. About one-half the group were younger than 13, while the rest concentrated largely in the 13 to 1 5 age range. The median THE the staff of the Rochester Guidance Center. When the project was in-Presented before the .4merican Association for Applied Psychology at Washington, 1939.

Research on psychotherapy with children and adolescents: An overview of evolving trends and current issues

“…With some exceptions (e.g., Bennett & Rogers, 1944), outcome used to be defined in terms of clinicians' global judgments. In Witmer's (1935) study, for example, treatment "success" was judged against a "commonsense" ideal of the well-adjusted child.…”

Criteria of success and failure in child guidance.

“…Then too, it has been suggested that information given by the parents may be based on courtesy or established resistance and should be checked against estimates given by teachers or others. Some workers (5) feel that in order to insure an independent judgment in re-evaluating cases, the clinician should have none of the initial data except the plan of treatment.…”

The Development and Evaluation of a Measure of Counseling Interview Procedures'

“…3 4. The counselor must have a firm conviction that if the counselee's rights to self-determination are to be respected it is necessary to refrain from either a personal or social evaluation (approval or disapproval) of the counselee's actions or attitudes.…”

“…3. The basic positive source of the counselee's satisfaction, hence of motivation, is integntion of dominant monves.…”

“…3. The counselee is the sole agent in the evaluation of the de.i,.bility of any objective and responsible for the direction of hi.…”