Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27558627›Full record

SynthesisBMC psychology2016

The neglect of treatment-construct validity in psychotherapy research: a systematic review of comparative RCTs of psychotherapy for Borderline Personality Disorder.

Lars-Gunnar Lundh, Terese Petersson, Martin Wolgast

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC psychology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Towards a Person-Oriented Approach to Psychotherapy Research.Journal for person-oriented research · 2019
    Article
  3. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Lars-Gunnar LundhDepartment of Psychology, Lund University, Box 213, 221 00, Lund, Sweden. Lars-Gunnar.Lundh@psy.lu.se.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1649-969X
Terese PeterssonDepartment of Psychology, Lund University, Box 213, 221 00, Lund, Sweden.
Martin WolgastDepartment of Psychology, Lund University, Box 213, 221 00, Lund, Sweden.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRandomized controlled trials (RCTs) are considered the best methodology for studying the efficacy of psychotherapy. Optimally an RCT design makes it possible to conclude that if one treatment has a better outcome than another, this is due to the treatment package (TP) as it was implemented in this particular context, rather than other factors beyond the treatment (= high internal validity). Strong internal validity does not, however, provide evidence for the treatment model (TM) that provides the theoretical basis of the TP, because the TP that is tested may differ from the comparison condition in a number of other ways that suggest alternative explanations for the effects. These alternative treatment contrasts represent threats to construct validity of the conclusions. Maximal construct validity requires (1) that the treatments are clearly contrasted on the experimental factors (treatment integrity), and (2) that alternative treatment contrasts can be eliminated. The analysis of alternative explanations is a neglected topic in psychotherapy research. To approach this problem, a methodology for the analysis of treatment contrasts is suggested and tested.

methodsTwo indexes were defined: (1) a Treatment Integrity Index (TII) and (2) an Alternative Treatment Contrast Index (ATCI). This methodological approach was applied to eight comparative RCTs of treatments for Borderline Personality Disorder (BPD), which were coded for a set of treatment contrasts independently by three coders.

resultsThe analysis of the RCTs of treatments for BPD showed that construct validity differed widely between the different studies but was generally low (low TII and ATCI), and that it is therefore difficult to draw causal conclusions from this research. The publication policies of scientific journals in this area seldom require the systematic data relevant to an analysis of alternative explanations of the effects, which is needed to provide evidence for a particular TM.

conclusionsResearch on psychotherapy needs to be refocused from treatment packages (TP) to treatment models (TM). This requires an improved conceptualization of the methodological principles and skills involved, and the development of valid measures of these, but also improved reporting standards concerning treatment-construct validity in scientific journals.

Indexed as

Randomized Controlled Trials as TopicBorderline Personality DisorderHumansPsychotherapyReproducibility of ResultsStatistics as TopicTreatment OutcomeAlternative explanationsBorderline personality disorderConstruct validityInternal validityPsychotherapyRandomized controlled trialsTreatment contrastsTreatment integrityTreatment modelTreatment package

Identifiers

PMID27558627
PMCPMC4997665

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.