I recently did a training in Colorado Springs and was asked by talented young therapist, Andrew Van Dyke to address four questions for the Psych Society newsletter:

1. Do you have any tips on how to motivate resistant clients, i.e., non-compliant, court-ordered, or mandated clients to positive change? Clients may not share our motivations, but they certainly hold strong motivations of their own. Research has now established that the critical process-outcome link in successful therapy is the quality of the client’s participation. Clients who collaborate in therapy, are engaged with the therapist, and involve themselves with a receptive and open mind will likely profit. Owing to the importance of clients’ positive involvement for outcome, their motivation—not only just for being in therapy, but also for achieving their own goals—has to be understood, respected, and actively incorporated into the treatment. To do less or to impose agendas motivated by theoretical prerogatives, personal bias, and perhaps some sense of what would be good for the client, invites “resistance.”What we come to call resistance may sometimes reflect the client’s attempt to salvage a small portion of self-respect.

Important findings regarding court-ordered or mandated clients emerged from Project Match, the largest study of substance abuse ever done. First, there was no difference in outcome between mandated and non-mandated clients; and second, the only predictor of outcome, whether the client was voluntary or involuntary, was the therapeutic alliance. Whether clients are “resistant” or mandated, job one is the therapeutic alliance. It’s not always easy. But you didn’t think that “therapeutic work” business only applied to clients—did you?

2. As students, we often get overwhelmed with a plethora of theoretical models and techniques. How important is technique delivery in being an effective therapist who creates positive results in the majority of our clients? Sometimes our altruistic desire to be helpful hoodwinks us into believing that if we were just smart enough or trained correctly, clients would not remain inured to our best efforts—if we found the Holy Grail, that special model or technique, we could once and for all defeat the psychic dragons that terrorize clients. Amid explanations and remedies aplenty, therapists courageously continue the search for designer explanations and brand name miracles—disconnected from the power for change that resides in the pairing of two unique persons, the application of strategies that resonate with both, and the impact of a quality partnership.

Don’t get me wrong. There is nothing wrong with learning about models and techniques—in fact, it is a good thing because it allows you to fit more client preferences. But becoming beholden to one is folly as is the belief that any model represents the way that people can be helped. Technique is important but it is only effective to the extent that it engages the client in purposeful work. If it does not pass that fundamental test, it has no value regardless of its evidentiary support. Moreover, a particular technique is only important to the client in your office now if it results in measureable benefit. The proof of the pudding is in the eating.

3. What is the history of the use of outcome measures in psychotherapy and what do you think its future role will ultimately be in managed care? Ken Howard first advocated for the evaluation of client response to treatment during the course of therapy, but feedback pioneer Michael Lambert really brought the idea to fruition. He has conducted six RCTs that have demonstrated significant gains for feedback groups over treatment as usual (TAU) for clients at-risk for a negative outcome. The addition of client feedback alone enabled over two times the amount of at- risk clients to benefit from psychotherapy. Our recent RCT of couple therapy found that feedback clients reached clinically significant change nearly four times more than non-feedback couples.

Collecting data and managing outcomes can allow therapists, agencies, and professional organizations to become “players” at the reimbursement table with managed care. The advantages in effectiveness and efficiency that outcome management brings can be bargaining chips that increase the value of our services. We should support managed care systems that collect data and provide immediate feedback about results so that we can adjust quickly to benefit clients. On the other side, we should oppose data collection for the purpose of provider profiling and incentive practices without feedback. Such policies risk killing the spirit of outcome management—to help as many clients as possible—and turning therapists against measuring outcomes.

4. What changes in thinking and practicing are you hoping that participants walk away with from your trainings? There are two things I would love for folks to walk away with. First is that regardless of one’s preferences regarding theory or technique, outcomes can be improved by paying more attention to the heart and soul of change: Rallying the client and his or her resources to the cause, their participation, is the heart of the work; and proactively securing that tried and true but taken for granted old friend, the therapeutic alliance—the soul of change is the alliance. The second change that I hope for is that folks will give client feedback a shot, not some time, not next month or even next week, but with the next client. Client-based feedback substantially increases the effectiveness and efficiency of services—more than anything in the history of our field. It enhances the benefit of any psychotherapy regardless of the model practiced. Nine of ten therapists in our large RCT improved their outcomes with feedback; in fact a therapist in the lowest tier of effectiveness without feedback became the most effective therapist in the study with feedback.

And two announcements: One is that pdfs of all the Heart and Soul of Change Conference presentations are now available at: http://heartandsoulofchange.com/heart-and-soul-of-change-conference-new-orleans-slide-presentations/

And the next webinar is scheduled: our own Bob Bohanske presenting “Implementing CDOI in Public Agencies: Is it Mission Impossible?”

I am very pleased to announce that our alliance article from the Norway Feedback Project (Anker, Owen, Duncan, & Sparks, in press) was accepted in the prestigious Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology (JCCP). Congrats to the whole team: Morten Anker, Certified Trainer, Jesse Owen, Research Director, and Jacqueline Sparks, Project Leader. Although already well established in terms of its widespread use and validated psychometrics, this is a major step forward for the Session Rating Scale (our alliance measure), bringing it more academic credibility, and importantly, it allows mainstream scientific dissemination of the idea of continuous alliance monitoring. The Outcome Rating Scale/Session Rating Scale combo (or the Partners for Change Outcome Management System or PCOMS), btw, is the only outcome system that includes routine alliance monitoring. And the SRS is the only alliance measure specifically designed for the front line clinician for use with every client in every session.

There’s a lot of talk about what makes some therapists more effective than others, and a lot of claims unsubstantiated by research. But what really makes a difference in outcome is that tried and true but taken granted old friend, the alliance. The most definitive thing we know about what makes some therapists better than others is their ability to secure a good alliance across a variety of client presentations and personalities. This finding was recently confirmed by a sophisticated analysis by Scott Baldwin and colleagues in perhaps the premier psychotherapy research publication, JCCP. It also dispelled common folklore by demonstrating that good alliances were more of a function of what therapists brought to the table than clients; i.e., therapists adept at alliances were able to transcend type of client while other less effective therapists were not. Further, and simply put, the alliance accounts for five to seven times the amount of variance of outcome as model and technique. And, according to the bible of psychotherapy outcome research (Garfield and Bergin’s Handbook of Psychotherapy and Behavior Change, the Orlinsky, Rønnestad, and Willutzki chapter) there are over 1000 process-outcome findings that support the association between a strong alliance and positive outcome.

Despite this, however, naysayers (read model maniacs, I mean proponents) will dismiss the alliance by saying the research is only correlational. Even more damning, they say, is that we don’t know which comes first, client experience of a strong alliance or client report of change or benefit—the classic chicken or the egg question. Enter our just accepted alliance study that involved a total sample of 500 clients. The alliance significantly predicted outcome over and above early change, demonstrating that the alliance is not merely an artifact of client improvement but rather a force to be reckoned with in and of itself. Don’t let anyone tell you that the alliance is anything less than it is—the single greatest impact we can have on client change. We can continually improve our ability to form strong alliances with a broader range of clients, and thereby improve our effectiveness. Don’t leave it to change. Monitor with your clients.

A new feature just added to the website: The Heart and Soul of Change Project Mailing List. This list won’t cover you up in email or leave you hurling harsh language at me—I promise. You will only receive 4-6 updates per year about the latest training opportunities and Project happenings.  Subscribe/unsubscribe or change your profile.

Finally, the next webinar is scheduled:

Have you ever wondered how to present client directed outcome informed (CDOI) ideas and practices to a general rather than professional audience? Wonder no longer, because that is what I did in my self help book, What’s Right With You and that’s what this webinar will do:

We live in a world pervaded by the unspoken attitude that we are all basically flawed, broken, incomplete, scarred or sick: we’re labeled as dysfunctional, codependent, depressed, you name it. Contrary to popular perception and drug company ad campaigns, fifty years of research shows that positive change does not primarily emerge from examining the disorders, diseases, or dysfunctions—all the stuff that’s wrong with us—that allegedly plague the masses. Change, in truth, comes from what’s right with the people attempting it—their strengths, resources, ideas, and relational support—not the labels they are branded with, the special expertise of doctors or the magic methods or potions they peddle.

In this webinar Barry translates CDOI into a six step plan, as detailed in his self help book, What’s Right With You.

Title: What’s Right With You by Barry Duncan
Date: Friday, May 28, 2010
Time: 12:00 PM – 1:00 PM CDT

Join the CDOI Members or wait until this webinar is posted on the bookstore.

The upcoming conference in New Orleans will present the latest findings about the common factors—what works in therapy—and will demonstrate how to deliver them via client based outcome feedback. The common factors have a storied history that started with Saul Rosenzweig’s (1936) classic article “Implicit Common Factors in Diverse Forms of Psychotherapy.” In addition to the original invocation of the dodo bird and seminal explication of the common factors of change, Rosenzwieg also provided the best explanation for the common factors, still used today. Namely, given that all approaches achieve roughly similar results, there must be pantheoretical factors accounting for the observed changes beyond the presumed differences among schools.

In 1936, writing in the American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, Rosenzweig observed that no form of psychotherapy or healing is without cures to its credit. Concluding that success is therefore not a reliable guide to the validity of a theory, he suggested that some potent implicit common factors, perhaps more important than the methods purposely employed, explained the uniformity of success of seemingly diverse methods. Rosenzweig summarized these common factors in addition to the therapeutic relationship:
(1) the operation of implicit, unverbalized factors, such as catharsis, and the yet undefined effect of the personality of the good therapist; (2) the formal consistency of the therapeutic ideology as a basis for reintegration; (3) the alternative formulation of psychological events and the interdependence of personality organization as concepts which reduce the effectual importance of mooted differences between one form of psychotherapy and another (p. 415).

Preparing for the conference in New Orleans, once again, stimulated my reflections about the person who started it all. On August 9, 2004, Saul Rosenzweig died at the age of 97. Rosenzweig’s prolific accomplishments, over 225 publications, are notable in surprisingly varied contexts: his seminal discussion of experimenter bias (Rosenzweig, 1933), the correspondence with Freud (Rosenzweig, 1985), the Picture-Frustration Study (Rosenzweig, 1976), his response to Eysenck’s (1952) critique of psychotherapy (Rosenzweig, 1954), and his New York Times acclaimed analysis of Freud’s visit to the US (Rosenzweig, 1992). And of course, germane here, he published the first known proposal for the common factors in 1936 at the ripe old age of 29.

I invite you to read Rosenzweig’s seminal contribution so that you may experience firsthand how far four journal pages can reach—laying the groundwork for common factors and predicting perhaps the most replicated finding in all of psychotherapy, the dodo verdict. I also invite you into my conversation with him that sheds light on his sources of inspiration for both the common factors and the first invocation of the dodo bird. His first person account of the historical context—where and how the common factors journey started—enables readers to more fully appreciate where we are now.

I think it important to remember where ideas come from and to credit those whose shoulders we now stand. In fact, I believed this to be so important that I persevered to include a tribute to Saul in the prologue of the new edition of the Heart and Soul of Change. His contribution warranted that at the very least.

I had the great privilege to spend some time with Saul on several occasions and he was a pure delight, witty and still quite active in his work. My interview of him for the Journal of Psychotherapy Integration is one of the high points of my career. So that you might enjoy a flavor of what he was like, check out the video of when Saul was presented the Heart and Soul of Change award back in 2002.

Of course a lot has happened with the common factors since Saul first wrote about them. I’ll pick up with Jerome Frank next time.

One of the great controversies in psychotherapy has been the common v. specific factors debate. On one hand, the common factors, or the notion that it is the pantheoretical aspects of providing psychotherapy, those elements common to all (like the alliance) that account for change. On the other hand, the specific factors side argues that there are unique ingredients to particular models of practice that explain how people change in therapy. The common factors side of things enjoys far more empirical support given that no approach has every shown superiority over another, have not ever demonstrated the proposed specific effects, and model differences only account for 1% of the overall variance. It would be great, however, to move beyond the common v specific factors polemics because of course, the factors are intimately intertwined in all ways imaginable. But it is tough when various orientations continue to argue for specific factors in somewhat deceptive attempts to privilege different models. Fact of the matter is you can’t really separate the specific elements of a given model from the context it occurs in (not to mention who is delivering the treatment), or the general effects of delivering any treatment.

Here is how I am writing about the interdependence (excerpted from my new book, On Becoming a Better Therapist): The specific factors (the differences between models) have a relatively small impact but the general effects of delivering a treatment are far more potent. As Jerome Frank (1973) seminally noted, all models include a rationale or myth, an explanation for the client’s difficulties, and a procedure or ritual, strategies to follow for resolving them. Models achieve their effects, in large part, if not completely through the activation of placebo, hope, and expectancy, combined with the therapist’s belief in (allegiance to) the treatment administered. As long as a treatment makes sense to, is accepted by, and fosters the active engagement of the client, the particular approach used is unimportant. Said another way, therapeutic techniques are placebo-delivery devices (Kirsch, 2005).

Allegiance and expectancy are two sides of the same coin—the belief by both the therapist and the client in the restorative power and credibility of the therapy’s rationale and related rituals. When a placebo or technically “inert” condition is offered in a manner that fosters positive expectations for improvement, it reliably produces effects almost as large as a bona fide treatment (Baskin, Tierney, Minami, & Wampold, 2003). The TDCRP is again instructive. First, across all conditions, client expectation of improvement predicted outcome (Sotsky et al., 1991). And second, an inspection of the Beck Depression Inventory scores of those who completed the study (see Elkin et al., 1989) reveals that the placebo plus clinical management condition accounted for nearly 93% of the average response to the active treatments. The act of administering treatment—the model/technique delivered—is the vehicle that carries allegiance and placebo effects in addition to the specific effects of the given approach.

It pays, therefore, to have several rationales and remedies at your disposal that you believe in, as well as believing in the possibility of the client’s ideas about change. Finally, it is important to note that suggesting specific effects are small in comparison to general effects, and that psychotherapy approaches achieve about the same results does not mean that models and techniques are not important. On the contrary, a particular orientation or method may be just the ticket for a given client—while there is no differential efficacy on aggregate, there are approaches that are likely better or worse for the client in your office now.
Bottom Line: The specifics of any approach, either unique to the client or of a particular orientation, are not as important as the cogency of the rationale and ritual to both the client and the therapist, and most importantly, the client’s response to the delivered treatment.

And then there is the alliance context of delivering any specific treatment. The alliance is an all-encompassing framework for psychotherapy—it transcends any specific therapist behavior and is a property of all aspects of providing services (Hatcher & Barends, 2006). The alliance is evident in anything and everything you do—from offering an explanation or technique to address the client’s situation to scheduling the next appointment—to engage the client in purposive work. In an important way, the alliance is dependent on the delivery of some particular treatment—a framework for understanding and solving the problem. The alliance cannot happen without technique (Hatcher & Barends, 2006). If technique fails to engage the client in purposive work, it is not working properly and a change is needed. Think of it this way: Technique is an activity—the alliance is a way to characterize that activity; the alliance is the purpose of the activity (Hatcher & Barends, 2006). Although it is possible for a strong relationship to develop between you and the client, there can be no agreement about the tasks of therapy, a critical aspect of the alliance, without some discussion and negotiation of what “treatment” will be used (Wampold, 2010)—be it some specific approach, the client’s own ideas and cultural preferences, or some unique blend.

The overlapping components of the Venn diagram below depicts the interdependent common factors. There can be no alliance without a treatment, and on the other hand, technique is only as effective as its delivery system—the client-therapist relationship. So you can’t have a good alliance without some agreement about how therapy is going to address the issues at hand. You can’t have purposeful work without collaboration about what that work will entail.

Here is where the incredible variety of models and techniques pays off. While there is no differential efficacy among approaches in general, there is differential efficacy among approaches with the client in your office now. The question is: does it resonate or not? Does it fit client preferences? Does its application help or hinder the alliance? Is it something that both you and the client can get behind? You matter here too. If you don’t believe in the potential restorative or healing power of any selected approach—i.e., don’t have allegiance to it—then not much good will come of it. Can you get on board with the client’s notions about how he or she can be helped? Or perhaps some idiosyncratic blend of client ideas, yours, and theoretical/technical ones might ultimately be just the ticket. Your alliance skills are truly at play here: your interpersonal ability to explore the client’s ideas, discuss options, collaboratively form a plan, and negotiate any changes when benefit to the client is not forthcoming. Technique, its selection and application, in other words, are instances of the alliance in action.

So it doesn’t make a whole lot of sense to think of things separately. That is what my hallucinogenic figure tries to portray. BTW, see a full explanation of the common factors diagram on the handouts page:
http://heartandsoulofchange.com/resources/handouts/

And don’t forget to register for the free webinar!

Title: “Dr. Barry Duncan– What in the heck is CDOI? Client Directed, Outcome Informed Ideas and Practices
Date: Tuesday, December 22, 2009
Time: 12:00 PM – 1:00 PM CDT
Register now by clicking the link below:
https://www2.gotomeeting.com/register/326593746

Here are the slides:

Coming soon: People have asked me about my Oprah appearance for years. On my next blog, I will post the video. The deal is that I am posting it but you are not allowed to laugh about it, at least not to my face!