Books / Clinical practice & common factors
The Great Psychotherapy Debate: The Evidence for What Makes Psychotherapy Work
Bruce E. Wampold’s The Great Psychotherapy Debate compares explanations for how psychotherapy works. The 2015 second edition, co-authored with Zac E. Imel, presents a contextual model alongside a discussion of research on treatments, therapeutic relationships and therapist effects.
Book details
Author of listed edition: Bruce E. Wampold (with Zac E. Imel in 2nd ed.)
Edition: First published in 2001; second edition with Zac E. Imel in 2015. The 2015 paperback has ISBN 9780805857092.
Publisher: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates / Routledge
Edition year: 2001
Language and origin: English (United States)
Form and genre: Clinical & Theoretical Monograph
Level: Advanced
Historical era: 1980–2009 · Evidence-Based, Trauma & Integrative Era
Covers: The medical and contextual models of psychotherapy; Research comparing the outcomes of different treatments; Therapeutic relationships, expectations and treatment activities; Research on therapist effects, treatment components and allegiance
APA 7th reference: Wampold, B. E. (2001). The great psychotherapy debate: Models, methods, and findings. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
What it is
First published in 2001, this book examines competing accounts of psychotherapy and the evidence used to support them. Bruce Wampold and Zac Imel co-authored the second edition in 2015.
What it covers
The authors contrast a medical model with their contextual account. They discuss evidence from treatment comparisons and component studies alongside therapeutic relationships, expectations, therapist differences and researcher allegiance.
Reading the evidence
The contextual model proposes that relationships, expectations and treatment activities can contribute to change. Research on psychotherapy comparisons has produced different findings depending on the treatments, participants, outcomes and methods examined. A 2014 meta-analysis found small differences on primary outcomes in the studies reviewed; it did not find differences on secondary outcomes.
Reader level and educational scope
The interpretation of treatment comparisons and common factors remains debated. A finding of no statistically significant difference does not on its own establish that treatments are equivalent. This entry introduces the book and research; it does not recommend treatment.
Paired academic and clinical scholarship
Paired work: A Meta-Analysis of Outcome Studies Comparing Bona Fide Psychotherapies: Empirically, "All Must Have Prizes" (Bruce E. Wampold, Gregory W. Mondin, Marcia Moody, Frederick Stich, Kurt Benson, and Hyun-nie Ahn, 1997)
Reference: Wampold, B. E., Mondin, G. W., Moody, M., Stich, F., Benson, K., & Ahn, H. (1997). A meta-analysis of outcome studies comparing bona fide psychotherapies: Empirically, "all must have prizes." Psychological Bulletin, 122(3), 203–215.
A 1997 meta-analysis compared outcomes of treatments intended to be therapeutic and reported roughly similar outcomes across the comparisons reviewed. Its findings and interpretation remain debated.
Source-mapped claims and evidence notes
Claim 1: Wampold and Imel present a contextual model that considers the relationship, expectations and treatment activities as possible pathways in psychotherapy. (This is an account advanced by the authors, not a settled explanation for every treatment or person.) [Source 1: Wampold, B. E., & Imel, Z. E. (2015). The great psychotherapy debate: The evidence for what makes psychotherapy work (2nd ed.). Routledge. (Original work published 2001)]
Claim 2: A 2014 meta-analysis found small differences between treatments on primary outcomes but no differences on secondary outcomes in the studies reviewed. (The findings are limited to the comparisons and outcomes studied; a non-significant difference does not itself establish equivalence.) [Source 4: Marcus, D. K., O’Connell, D., Norris, A. L., & Sawaqdeh, A. (2014). Is the Dodo bird endangered in the 21st century? A meta-analysis of treatment comparison studies. Clinical Psychology Review, 34(7), 519–530.]
Sources and inspection notes
Supports: Pending verification: Publisher record for the second edition; detailed claims about the book await independent review.
Supports: Pending verification: The authors’ 1997 meta-analysis and interpretation of comparisons among treatments intended to be therapeutic.
Supports: Authors, publication date, edition and paperback ISBN of the 2015 second edition.
Supports: Abstract reports small differences for primary outcomes and no differences for secondary outcomes in the comparisons reviewed.