Search

Objective: Previous research has found that therapist adherence to concrete, problem-focused cognitive therapy (CT) techniques predicts depressive symptom change (e.g., Feeley, DeRubeis, & Gelfand, 1999). More recently, Strunk, DeRubeis, Chui, and Alvarez (2007) demonstrated that in-session evidence of patients' use of CT skills was related to a lower rate of relapse in the year following CT for depression. The current investigation attempts to integrate and extend these findings within 2 separate samples of patients and therapists. Method: Drawing from the CT samples (N = 105, mean age = 40 years, female = 62%, White = 82%) of 2 published randomized clinical trials of depression treatment, we conducted analyses to examine whether therapist adherence to concrete CT techniques (Collaborative Study Psychotherapy Rating Scale) and the quality of the therapeutic alliance (Working Alliance Inventory) predict patients' use of CT skills (Performance of Cognitive Therapy Strategies) and subsequent Beck Depression Inventory symptom change. Results: Results indicated a differential pattern of prediction in the 2 samples. In one, CT techniques exhibited a stronger association with patient CT skills and symptom change than did the alliance, whereas the reverse pattern emerged in the second sample. A baseline symptom severity x CT techniques interaction indicated that between-study differences in intake depression severity might in part explain the process-outcome differences. Conclusions: The present findings suggest that the nature of the therapy sample examined may moderate process-outcome findings in psychotherapy research. The implications of these results and directions for future research are discussed. (Contains 2 tables and 3 footnotes.)

A growing body of research supports the efficacy of cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) for adolescent depression. The mechanisms through which CBT exerts its beneficial effects on adolescent patients suffering from depression, however, remain unclear. The current article reviews the CBT for adolescent depression process literature. Our review focuses on several process variables: the therapeutic alliance, patient cognitive change, and therapist adherence to, and competence in, the theory-specified techniques of therapy. Given that the vast majority of CBT process research has been conducted in the context of adult psychotherapy, we also review relevant adult research as a framework for understanding adolescent process research and to inform future investigations. Methodological issues are addressed and recommendations for future process research are raised. (Contains 2 footnotes.)

Objective: The therapeutic alliance has been linked to symptom change in numerous investigations. Although the alliance is commonly conceptualized as a multidimensional construct, few studies have examined its components separately. The current study explored which components of the alliance are most highly associated with depressive symptom change in cognitive therapy (CT). Method: Data were drawn from 2 published randomized, controlled clinical trials of CT for major depressive disorder (n = 105, mean age = 40 years, female = 62%, White = 82%). We examined the relationslor of 2 factor-analytically derived components of the Working Alliance Inventory (WAI; Horvath & Greenberg, 1986, 1989) with symptom change on the Beck Depression Inventory-II (BDI-II; Beck, Steer, & Brown, 1996) that occurred either prior to or subsequent to the examined sessions. WAI ratings were obtained at an early and a late session for each therapist-patient dyad. Results: Variation in symptom change subsequent to the early session was significantly related to the WAI factor that assesses therapist-patient agreement on the goals and tasks of therapy but not to a factor assessing the affective bond between therapist and patient. In contrast, both factors, when assessed in a late session, were significantly predicted by prior symptom change. Conclusions: These findings may reflect the importance, in CT, of therapist-patient agreement on the goals and tasks of therapy. In contrast, the bond between therapist and patient may be more of a consequence than a cause of symptom change in CT. The implications of these results and directions for future research are discussed. (Contains 4 footnotes and 1 table.)

Objective: The efficacy of cognitive therapy (CT) for depression has been well established. Measures of the adequacy of therapists' delivery of treatment are critical to facilitating therapist training and treatment dissemination. While some studies have shown an association between CT competence and outcome, researchers have yet to address whether competence ratings predict subsequent outcomes. Method: In a sample of 60 moderately to severely depressed outpatients from a clinical trial, we examined competence ratings (using the Cognitive Therapy Scale) as a predictor of subsequent symptom change. Results: Competence ratings predicted session-to-session symptom change early in treatment. In analyses focused on prediction of symptom change following 4 early sessions through the end of 16 weeks of treatment, competence was shown to be a significant predictor of evaluator-rated end-of-treatment depressive symptom severity and was predictive of self-reported symptom severity at the level of a nonsignificant trend. To investigate whether competence is more important to clients with specific complicating features, we examined 4 patient characteristics as potential moderators of the competence-outcome relation. Competence was more highly related to subsequent outcome for patients with higher anxiety, an earlier age of onset, and (at a trend level) patients with a chronic form of depression (chronic depression or dysthymia) than for those patients without these characteristics. Competence ratings were not more predictive of subsequent outcomes among patients who met (vs. those who did not meet) criteria for a personality disorder (i.e., among personality disorders represented in the clinical trial). Conclusions: These findings provide support for the potential utility of CT competence ratings in applied settings. (Contains 5 footnotes, 2 tables, and 1 figure.)

Objective: The authors conducted a meta-analytic review of adherence-outcome and competence-outcome findings, and examined plausible moderators of these relations. Method: A computerized search of the PsycINFO database was conducted. In addition, the reference sections of all obtained studies were examined for any additional relevant articles or review chapters. The literature search identified 36 studies that met the inclusion criteria. Results: R-type effect size estimates were derived from 32 adherence-outcome and 17 competence-outcome findings. Neither the mean weighted adherence-outcome (r = 0.02) nor competence-outcome (r = 0.07) effect size estimates were found to be significantly different from zero. Significant heterogeneity was observed across both the adherence-outcome and competence-outcome effect size estimates, suggesting that the individual studies were not all drawn from the same population. Moderator analyses revealed that larger competence-outcome effect size estimates were associated with studies that either targeted depression or did not control for the influence of the therapeutic alliance. Conclusions: One explanation for these results is that, among the treatment modalities represented in this review, therapist adherence and competence play little role in determining symptom change. However, given the significant heterogeneity observed across findings, mean effect sizes must be interpreted with caution. Factors that may account for the nonsignificant adherence-outcome and competence-outcome findings reported within many of the studies reviewed are addressed. Finally, the implication of these results and directions for future process research are discussed. (Contains 2 tables, 2 figures and 4 footnotes.)

A recent randomized controlled trial found nearly equivalent response rates for antidepressant medications and cognitive therapy in a sample of moderate to severely depressed outpatients. In this article, the authors seek to identify the variables that were associated with response across both treatments as well as variables that predicted superior response in one treatment over the other. The sample consisted of 180 depressed outpatients: 60 of whom were randomly assigned to cognitive therapy; 120 were assigned to antidepressant medications. Treatment was provided for 16 weeks. Chronic depression, older age, and lower intelligence each predicted relatively poor response across both treatments. Three prescriptive variables--marriage, unemployment, and having experienced a greater number of recent life events--were identified, and each predicted superior response to cognitive therapy relative to antidepressant medications. Thus, 6 markers of treatment outcome were identified, each of which might be expected to carry considerable clinical utility. The 3 prognostic variables identify subgroups that might benefit from alternative treatment strategies; the 3 prescriptive variables identify groups who appear to respond particularly well to cognitive therapy. (Contains 3 footnotes, 4 tables, and 4 figures.)

Randomization procedures are performed in order to maximize the internal validity of treatment outcome studies. Objections have been made that this practice undermines the external validity of these studies because it ignores patients' treatment preferences, thereby precluding the self-selection of treatment that can occur in the community. This study used data from a multisite, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial comparing antidepressant medication to cognitive therapy for moderately to severely depressed outpatients. It compared the treatment outcomes of patients who, via randomization, received their preferred treatment versus those who did not. Although the majority of patients stated a preference for one treatment over the other, there was no significant difference in the magnitude of reduction in symptoms of depression between those who received their treatment of choice versus those who did not. These results do not provide support for the claim that the external validity of randomized controlled trials suffers from this aspect of the randomization procedure.

Cognitive therapy (CT) for depression is designed to teach patients material that is believed to help prevent relapse following successful treatment. This study of 35 moderately to severely depressed patients who responded to CT provides the 1st evidence to suggest that both development and independent use of these competencies predict reduced risk for relapse. Among patients who responded to treatment, both CT coping skills and in-session evidence of the independent implementation of CT material predicted lower risk for relapse in the year following treatment. These relationships were not accounted for by either symptom severity at the end of treatment or symptom change from pre- to posttreatment. Self-esteem, assessed at posttreatment, failed to predict risk for relapse in the year following treatment. Thus, CT coping skills and independent use of CT principles, but not overall satisfaction with oneself, appear to play an important role in relapse prevention.

Cognitive therapy (CT) may have significant advantages over antidepressants in preventing depression relapses. Many CT patients experience sudden gains: large symptom improvement in 1 between-session interval. Past studies have associated CT sudden gains with in-session cognitive changes but not with life events. This study examined sudden gains and depression relapse/recurrence among 60 CT clinical-trial patients. Survival analyses showed that only one third of sudden-gain-responders relapsed in 2 years, and they had 74% lower relapse risks than did non-sudden-gain-responders. Among patients with sustained responses, 73% experienced sudden gains. The authors also replicated J. R. Vittengl, L. A. Clark, and R. B. Jarrett's finding that sudden gains identified with their unique criteria did not predict relapse. The current authors' findings suggest that CT sudden gains are not measurement artifacts, and that sudden gains and their causes and consequences might be important in preventing relapses.

Recent research suggests that there may be a reduction in therapeutic response after multiple administrations of antidepressant drug (AD) therapy in patients with major depressive disorder. This study assessed the response to AD therapy and cognitive therapy (CT) of patients with a history of prior AD exposures. A sample of 240 patients with moderate-to-severe major depressive disorder entered a randomized controlled trial comparing pharmacotherapy with paroxetine to CT. Treatment was administered for 16 weeks. History of prior AD exposure was assessed with structured interviews, self-report, and medical records. Analyses were conducted using hierarchical linear models on the intent-to-treat sample. After controlling for various demographic and clinical factors, more prior AD exposures predicted poor response to paroxetine therapy but not to CT, as measured by the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (Hamilton, 1960; Williams, 1988). Whereas CT outcome was not significantly related to the number of prior AD exposures, a higher number of prior AD exposures was significantly associated with a lower response to paroxetine. If these findings are replicated in methodologically rigorous studies of paroxetine and other antidepressants, CT should be recommended, in preference to AD, for patients with multiple prior AD exposures.