Psychotherapy research : journal of the Society for Psychotherapy Research · 2026
Is there an allegiance bias on the efficacy of systemic therapy? A three-level meta- regression analysis.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Braus Niels, Flückiger Christoph, Gräfenkämper Robin, Frankman Christian, Wichmann Johanna, Hunger-Schoppe Christina
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: Allegiance bias affects the reproducibility of psychotherapy outcomes, but its impact in systemic therapy (ST) remains largely unexplored.
METHOD: Two meta-analyses were conducted: Study 1 with 42 RCTs (364 effect sizes) for children and adolescents, as well as Study 2 with 30 RCTs (161 effect sizes) for adults. Allegiance was measured using a comprehensive rating scale across researcher, therapist, trainer, and supervisor levels. Furthermore, risk of bias (RoB) was assessed using the adapted tool for psychotherapy. Three-level meta-regressions were performed, controlling for dosage.
RESULTS: No significant moderating effect of the overall allegiance score was found in either study, Study 1: F(2, 361) = .88, p = .42, k = 364, s = 42; Study 2: F(2, 158) = 2.35, p = .10, k = 161, s = 30 . Researcher allegiance predicted higher treatment efficacy in Study 1 (β = .14, p = .02) but not in Study 2 (β = .02, p = .82). A significant moderating effect of RoB emerged in Study 2 (F(8, 151) = 3.02, p = .004, k = 161, s = 30), indicating that higher RoB was associated with larger effects favoring ST. This pattern was absent in Study 1 (F(8,355) = 1.04, p = .41, k = 364, s = 42).
CONCLUSION: The findings underscore the role of researcher allegiance investigating ST for children and adolescents and RoB in ST for adults, highlighting the need for transparent methods and replication efforts.
METHOD: Two meta-analyses were conducted: Study 1 with 42 RCTs (364 effect sizes) for children and adolescents, as well as Study 2 with 30 RCTs (161 effect sizes) for adults. Allegiance was measured using a comprehensive rating scale across researcher, therapist, trainer, and supervisor levels. Furthermore, risk of bias (RoB) was assessed using the adapted tool for psychotherapy. Three-level meta-regressions were performed, controlling for dosage.
RESULTS: No significant moderating effect of the overall allegiance score was found in either study, Study 1: F(2, 361) = .88, p = .42, k = 364, s = 42; Study 2: F(2, 158) = 2.35, p = .10, k = 161, s = 30 . Researcher allegiance predicted higher treatment efficacy in Study 1 (β = .14, p = .02) but not in Study 2 (β = .02, p = .82). A significant moderating effect of RoB emerged in Study 2 (F(8, 151) = 3.02, p = .004, k = 161, s = 30), indicating that higher RoB was associated with larger effects favoring ST. This pattern was absent in Study 1 (F(8,355) = 1.04, p = .41, k = 364, s = 42).
CONCLUSION: The findings underscore the role of researcher allegiance investigating ST for children and adolescents and RoB in ST for adults, highlighting the need for transparent methods and replication efforts.