AptitudeTreatment Interaction as a Framework for Research on Individual Differences in Psychotherapydoi: 10.1037/0022-006X.59.2.205pmid: N/A
Aptitude–Treatment interaction (ATI) methods are designed to take individual differences into account systematically in treatment evaluation. This article reviews the general concepts of aptitude and ATI and summarizes lessons learned in ATI research on educational treatments that should help ATI research on psychotherapeutic treatments. Recommendations for research design and data analysis address problems of aptitude distributions, multivariate aptitude complexes, detective work with scatterplots, disattenuation, treatment and therapist characteristics, therapist–client matching, ecological validity, outcome variables, statistical power, aggregation, and person independence. Example studies and hypotheses about the nature of ATI processes are also included.
Aptitude–Treatment Interaction as a Framework for Research on Individual Differences in PsychotherapySnow, Richard E.
doi: 10.1037/0022-006X.59.2.205pmid: N/A
Aptitude–Treatment interaction (ATI) methods are designed to take individual differences into account systematically in treatment evaluation. This article reviews the general concepts of aptitude and ATI and summarizes lessons learned in ATI research on educational treatments that should help ATI research on psychotherapeutic treatments. Recommendations for research design and data analysis address problems of aptitude distributions, multivariate aptitude complexes, detective work with scatterplots, disattenuation, treatment and therapist characteristics, therapist–client matching, ecological validity, outcome variables, statistical power, aggregation, and person independence. Example studies and hypotheses about the nature of ATI processes are also included.
Client–Treatment Interaction in the Study of Differential Change ProcessesShoham-Salomon, Varda; Hannah, Mo Therese
doi: 10.1037/0022-006X.59.2.217pmid: N/A
Research that combines correlational and experimental approaches in a search for aptitude–treatment interactions (ATI) is both inescapable and of potential benefit to the field. A number of epistemological and methodological issues regarding ATI research are discussed, ranging from the meaning of interaction to questions regarding the number of aptitudes and their types and the nature of interacting treatments. Despite the less than encouraging record of ATI research, it should not be abandoned, rather its purposes should be expanded. Instead of focusing on the pragmatic but hard-to-achieve goal of finding an optimal match between individual clients and specific therapies, ATI research should serve heuristic purposes. Theoretically derived and empirically tested interactions can clarify the change processes and mechanisms that make therapies differentially effective. Exploration of another type of interaction is recommended also: aptitude–outcome interaction (AOI), in which ostensibly identical therapies yield different outcomes through different mechanisms for different clients. The emphasis of AOI research is also more heuristic than pragmatic.
ClientTreatment Interaction in the Study of Differential Change Processesdoi: 10.1037/0022-006X.59.2.217pmid: N/A
Research that combines correlational and experimental approaches in a search for aptitude–treatment interactions (ATI) is both inescapable and of potential benefit to the field. A number of epistemological and methodological issues regarding ATI research are discussed, ranging from the meaning of interaction to questions regarding the number of aptitudes and their types and the nature of interacting treatments. Despite the less than encouraging record of ATI research, it should not be abandoned, rather its purposes should be expanded. Instead of focusing on the pragmatic but hard-to-achieve goal of finding an optimal match between individual clients and specific therapies, ATI research should serve heuristic purposes. Theoretically derived and empirically tested interactions can clarify the change processes and mechanisms that make therapies differentially effective. Exploration of another type of interaction is recommended also: aptitude–outcome interaction (AOI), in which ostensibly identical therapies yield different outcomes through different mechanisms for different clients. The emphasis of AOI research is also more heuristic than pragmatic.
Have All Won and Must All Have Prizes? Revisiting Luborsky et al.’s VerdictBeutler, Larry E.
doi: 10.1037/0022-006X.59.2.226pmid: N/A
Although most reviews of comparative psychotherapy literature have failed to find significant differences among treatments, it is premature to give up the search for differential effects. There are a large number of patient, therapist, and treatment variables that may mediate the effects of treatments. Given the enormity of the task of exploring potential interactions among the many patient, therapist, and psychotherapy types, a guiding model is needed by which to narrow our search for variables that mediate between treatment type and outcome. However, theoretical constructs that represent both patient and therapy variations frequently are poorly defined. Tests of treatment selection models that cut across narrow theoretical differences among psychotherapies and that operationalize definitions of patient types hold promise for revealing meaningful Patient × Therapist interaction effects in psychotherapy.
Have All Won and Must All Have Prizes? Revisiting Luborsky et al.s Verdictdoi: 10.1037/0022-006X.59.2.226pmid: N/A
Although most reviews of comparative psychotherapy literature have failed to find significant differences among treatments, it is premature to give up the search for differential effects. There are a large number of patient, therapist, and treatment variables that may mediate the effects of treatments. Given the enormity of the task of exploring potential interactions among the many patient, therapist, and psychotherapy types, a guiding model is needed by which to narrow our search for variables that mediate between treatment type and outcome. However, theoretical constructs that represent both patient and therapy variations frequently are poorly defined. Tests of treatment selection models that cut across narrow theoretical differences among psychotherapies and that operationalize definitions of patient types hold promise for revealing meaningful Patient × Therapist interaction effects in psychotherapy.
Treatment of Aptitude Treatment Interactionsdoi: 10.1037/0022-006X.59.2.233pmid: N/A
The main effects in psychotherapy research have been smaller than expected. Rather than concluding that psychotherapy has weak effects, clinical researchers have argued that average effect sizes are reduced because of mismatches between clients and treatment. Hence, Aptitude × Treatment interaction (ATI) research has been viewed as a promising new frontier in psychotherapy research. If ATI research is to become a productive and progressive program, then researchers will need to focus their attention on interesting and meaningful ATIs. This will require greater theoretical precision and a stronger emphasis on construct validity. Specific issues addressed in this article include Type II and Type III errors, manipulation checks from both the patient and practitioner perspective, considerations of the strength of treatment, the need to test rival hypotheses, and the desirability of collaborative research.
Treatment of Aptitude × Treatment InteractionsSmith, Bradley; Sechrest, Lee
doi: 10.1037/0022-006X.59.2.233pmid: N/A
The main effects in psychotherapy research have been smaller than expected. Rather than concluding that psychotherapy has weak effects, clinical researchers have argued that average effect sizes are reduced because of mismatches between clients and treatment. Hence, Aptitude × Treatment interaction (ATI) research has been viewed as a promising new frontier in psychotherapy research. If ATI research is to become a productive and progressive program, then researchers will need to focus their attention on interesting and meaningful ATIs. This will require greater theoretical precision and a stronger emphasis on construct validity. Specific issues addressed in this article include Type II and Type III errors, manipulation checks from both the patient and practitioner perspective, considerations of the strength of treatment, the need to test rival hypotheses, and the desirability of collaborative research.