Search

This study examines the predictive accuracy of four different methods of administration of a questionnaire designed to predict cancer and coronary heart disease (CHD) in healthy probands. The method of administration uses the establishment of trust and the explanation of questions as variables in all four possible combinations, i.e. trust and explanation, trust only, explanation only, and neither, the prediction being that the combination of trust and explanation would produce the most accurate prediction, the treatment using neither the worst prediction, with methods using either trust alone or explanation alone intermediate. The criterion was the successful prediction of cancer and CHD. A total population of 3563 men and women was used, and followed up over 15 years, death certificates being used to establish cause of death. As predicted, the combination of trust and explanation did best, use of neither worst. Explanation seemed more important than trust, and the combination seemed to have a synergistic effect. It is apparent that method of administration had an important effect on the outcome of the experiment.

The outcome problem in psychotherapy has usually been studied without much regard to the theories underlying the methods used. It is suggested that theories are vital to scientific advancement, and that without them we cannot even specify criteria to judge outcomes. Numerous studies since the 1950s have in essence failed to disconfirm the view that various forms of psychotherapy do not show greater effectiveness than spontaneous remission or placebo treatment. An effort is made to clarify the nature of spontaneous remission and placebo treatment, and to discuss the consequences of the many empirical findings and meta-analyses published over the past 50 years. A theory is suggested linking spontaneous remission, placebo treatment, psychotherapy and behavior therapy, leading to a discussion of ethical considerations and cost-effectiveness issues.

The Hendrickson paradigm of relating auditory evoked potentials (AEP) to measures of intelligence was validated. Only the variability parameter was replicated, showing a negative correlation between AEP variability and intelligence quotient (IQ). The correlation between component latency and IQ was weak. The Hendrickson string parameter was found to be significantly reversed, and the composite parameter was statistically insignificant. The Hendrickson model was thus viewed as a well-controlled AEP algorithm.