ArticlePDF Available

The Heart and Soul of Change: Getting Better at What We Do

Authors:
  • Better Outcomes Now

Figures

Content may be subject to copyright.
4
Editor's note: Dr. Duncan, the Director of the Heart and Soul of
Change Project, was the featured speaker at the spring IPA conference in
Des Moines.
There seems to be a prevailing view that to be an
accomplished psychotherapist one must be well versed in
evidence based treatments (EBT), or in those models that have
been shown in randomized clinical trials (RCT) to be
efficacious for different “disorders.” The idea here is to make
psychological interventions dummy-proof, where the people—
the client and the therapist—are basically irrelevant (Duncan,
2010). Just plug in the diagnosis, do the prescribed treatment,
and voila, cure or symptom amelioration occurs! This medical
view of therapy is perhaps the most empirically vacuous aspect
of EBTs because the treatment itself accounts for so little of
outcome variance, while the client and the therapist—and
their relationship—account for so much more. In fact, it is the
factors common to all psychotherapies that matter the most.
The Common Factors
To understand the common factors, it is first necessary to
separate the variance due to psychotherapy (see Figure 1)
from that attributed to client/life factors, those variables
incidental to the treatment model, idiosyncratic to the specific
client, and part of the client’s life circumstances that aid in
recovery despite participation in therapy (Lambert, 2013)—
everything about the client that has nothing to do with us.
Calculated from the oft reported 0.80 effect size (ES) of
therapy, the proportion of outcome attributable to treatment
(14%) is depicted by the small circle nested within the larger
circle at the lower right side of the left circle. The variance
accounted for by client factors (86%), including unexplained
and error variance, is represented by the large circle on the
left. Even a casual inspection reveals the disproportionate
influence of what the client brings to therapy—the client is
the engine of change (Bohart & Tallman, 2010).
Figure 1 also illustrates the second step in understanding
the common factors. The second, larger circle in the center
depicts the overlapping elements that form the 14% of
variance attributable to therapy. Visually, the relationship
among the common factors is more accurately represented
with a Venn diagram, using overlapping circles and shading
to demonstrate mutual and interdependent action.
Therapist Effects
Therapist effects represent the amount of variance
attributable not to the model wielded, but rather to whom the
therapist is—it’s no surprise that the participants in the therapeutic
endeavor account for the lion share of how change occurs.
Recent stu dies sugge st t hat 5-8% of the overa ll variance is
accounted for by therapist effects (Baldwin & Imel, 2013), or
36-57% of the variance accounted for by treatment. The amount
of variance, therefore, accounted for by therapist factors is about
five to eight times more than that of model differences.
Although we know that some therapists are better than
others, there is not a lot of research about what specifically
distinguishes the best from the rest. Demographics (gender,
ethnicity, discipline, and experience) don’t seem to matter much,
and although a variety of therapist interpersonal variables seem
intuitively important, there is not much empirical support for
any particular quality or attribute (Baldwin & Imel, 2013). So
what does matter? There are a couple of possibilities and one
absolute certainty. First, highlighting the importance of
recruiting client strengths and resiliencies suggested by the
variance attributed to client/life factors, Gassman and Grawe
(2006) found that therapists who spend more time in what they
called “resource activation” than “problem activation” got
better outcomes. The next possibility is experience, but not the
generic kind that we were often told that would make us better.
Recent st udie s su gges t th at spec ific experi ence wit h pa rtic ular
populations or “conditions” may yield better outcomes (Crits-
Cristoph, Connally Gibbons, & Mukherjee, 2013). And the
absolute certainty: The client’s view of the alliance—not only a
robust predictor of therapy outcomes, but also is perhaps the
best avenue to understand therapist differences. Research
strongly suggests that clients seen by therapists with higher
average alliance ratings have better outcomes (Crits-Cristoph et
al., 2013). So the answer to the oft heard question about why
some therapists are better than others is that tried and true but
taken for granted old friend, the therapeutic alliance.
The Alliance
Researchers repeatedly find that a positive alliance—an
interpersonal partnership between the client and therapist to
The Heart and Soul of Change: Getting Better
at What We Do Barry Duncan
THE IOWA PSYCHOLOGIST Summer 2013
Duncan: To Next Page
Feedback
Effects
21-42%
Model/Technique: General Effects
(Rational & Ritual), Client
Expectancy (Hope, Placebo)
& Therapist Allegiance 28-?%
Model/Technique:
Specific Effects (Model
Differences) 7%
Alliance Effects
36-50%
Treatment
Effects
14% Therapist
Effects
36-57%
FIGURE 1: Client/Life Factors (86%)
(includes unexplained and error variance)
THE COMMON
FACTORS
5
achieve the client’s goals (Bordin, 1979)—is one of the best
predictors of outcome. Horvath, Del Re, Fluckinger, and
Symonds (2011) examined 201 studies and found the
correlation between the alliance and outcome to be r = .28,
accounting for 7.5% of the overall variance and 36-50% of
treatment. The amount of change attributable to the alliance,
therefore, is about five (counting other studies) to seven times
that of specific model or technique.
We all have clients who rapidly respond to us. But what
about the folks who are mandated by the courts or protective
services or who just plain don’t want to be there (like almost
all kids)? What about people who have never been in a good
relationship or have been abused or traumatized? What about
folks that life just never seems to give a break? Well, the
therapist’s job, our job, is exactly the same regardless. If we
want anything good to happen, it all rests on a strong alliance
—we have to engage the client in purposeful work. The
research about what differentiates one therapist from another
as well as my personal experience suggest that the ability to
form alliances with people who are not easy to form alliances
with—to engage people who don’t want to be engaged—
separates the best from the rest.
Model/Technique: General Effects (Explanation
and Ritual), Client Expectancy (Hope, Placebo),
and Therapist Allegiance
Model/technique factors are the beliefs and procedures
unique to any given treatment. But these specific effects, the
impact of the differences among treatments, are very small, only
about 1% of the overall variance or 7% of that attributable to
treatment. But the general effects of providing a treatment are
far more potent. 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.
Feedback Effects
Common factors research provides general guidance for
enhancing those elements shown to be most influential to
positive outcomes. The specifics, however, can only be derived
from the client’s response to what we deliver—the client’s
feedback regarding progress in therapy and the quality of the
alliance. Although it sounds like hyperbole, identifying clients
who are not benefiting is the single most important thing a
therapist can do to improve outcomes. Combining Lambert’s
Outcome Questionnaire System (Lambert & Shimokawa,
2011) and our Partners for Change Outcome Management
System (PCOMS; Duncan, 2012), nine RCTs now support
this assertion. A recent meta-analysis of PCOMS studies
(Lambert & Shimokawa, 2011) found that those in feedback
group had 3.5 higher odds of experiencing reliable change and
less than half the chance of experiencing deterioration. In
addition, collecting outcome and alliance feedback from
clients allows the systematic tracking of therapist development
so that neither client benefit nor your growth over time is left
to wishful thinking. Visit heartandsoulofchange.com for more
information (The measures are free for individual use and
available in 23 languages.). PCOMS is listed by the Substance
Abuse and Mental Health Administration as an evidence
based practice. It is different than what is usually considered
evidence-based because feedback is a-theoretical and therefore
additive to any therapeutic orientation and applies to clients of
all diagnostic categories (Duncan, 2012).
An inspection of Figure 1 shows that feedback overlaps and
affects all the factors—it is the tie that binds them together—
allowing the other common factors to be delivered one client at
a time. Soliciting systematic feedback is a living, ongoing process
that engages clients in the collaborative monitoring of outcome,
heightens hope for improvement, fits client preferences,
maximizes therapist-client alliance potential and client
participation, and is itself a core feature of therapeutic change.
I was recently asked (Kottler & Carlson, 2014) what is it
that I do, and who I am that most made my work effective
(assuming that it is). What I do that is the most important in
contributing to my effectiveness is that I routinely measure
outcome and the alliance via PCOMS—it boils down to
identifying clients who aren't responding to my therapeutic
business as usual and addressing the lack of progress in a
positive, proactive way that keeps clients engaged while we
collaboratively seek new directions.
That’s what I do. But what I bring to the therapeutic
endeavor is that I am a true believer. I believe in the client
and his or her irrepressible ability to overcome adversity, I
believe in the power of relationship and psychotherapy as a
vehicle for change, and I believe in myself, my ability to be
present, fully immersed in the client, and dedicated to making
a difference. The odds for change when you combine a
resourceful client, a strong alliance, and an authentic
therapist who brings him/herself to the show, are worth
betting on, certainly cause for hope, and responsible for my
unswerving faith in psychotherapy as a healing endeavor.
References
Baldwin, S. A., & Imel. Z. (2013). Therapist effects. In M. J. Lambert (Ed).
Bergin and Garfield’s Handbook of Psychotherapy and Behavioral Change (6th ed., pp.
258–297). New York, NY: Wiley.
Bohart, A., & Tallman, K. (2010). Clients: The neglected common factor. In B.
Duncan, S. Miller, B.Wampold, & M. Hubble (Eds.), The heart and soul of change:
Delivering what works (2nd ed., pp. 83-12). Washington DC: American Psychological
Association Press.
Bordin, E. S. (1979). The generalizability of the psychoanalytic concept of the working
alliance. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research and Practice, 16, 252-260.
Crits-Christoph, P., Connolly Gibbons, M., & Mukherjee, D. (2013). Process-
outcome research. In M. J. Lambert (Ed.). Bergin and Garfield’s Handbook of
Psychotherapy and Behavioral Change (6th ed., pp. 298–340). New York, NY: Wiley.
Duncan, B. (2010). On becoming a better therapist. Washington, DC: American
Psychological Association.
Duncan, B. (2012). The partners for change outcome management system (PCOMS): The
heart and soul of change project. Canadian Psychology, 53, 93-104.
Gassman, D., & Grawe, K. (2006). General change mechanisms: The relation between
problem activation and resource activation in successful and unsuccessful therapeutic interactions.
Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, 13, 1–11.
Horvath, A., Del Re, A. C., Flückiger, C., & Symonds, D. (2011). Alliance in
individual psychotherapy. Psychotherapy, 48, 9-16.
Kottler, J., & Carlson, J. (2014) Becoming a master therapist. New York: Wiley.
Lambert, M. J. (2013). The efficacy and effectiveness of psychotherapy. In M. J.
Lambert (Ed.), Bergin and Garfield's handbook of psychotherapy and behavior change (6th
ed., pp. 169–218). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Lambert, M.J., & Shimokawa, K. (2011). Collecting client feedback.
Psychotherapy, 48, 72-79.
The Heart and Soul of Change ... Barry Duncan
THE IOWA PSYCHOLOGIST Summer 2013
From Page 4
Article
Das klinische Case Management (kCM) ist ein Managementsansatz der strukturierten und umfassenden Versorgung psychisch schwer gestorter Patienten, in dem der “Case Manager” sowohl aktiv mit und fur den Patienten handelnd in seine Lebensablaufe und sein Lebensumfeld eingreift, wie auch den Patienten psychosozial beratend und ggf. psychotherapeutisch behandelnd befahigt, sein Leben selbststandig zu bewaltigen. Im kCM werden “Management-” und “Psycho-/Therapie-Aspekte” integriert und von einer Person bzw. in einem Teamansatz umgesetzt. Die Beziehung zwischen Manager/Therapeut und Patient ist im kCM die zentrale Variable, die ein effizientes Management ermoglicht. Bislang ist die Beziehungskomponente noch nicht systematisch erforscht. Studien zufolge ist der Case Managementansatz jedoch hinreichend wirksam, wenn es z. B. um die Reduktion von Krankenhauseinweisungen bzw. die -liegedauer geht. Aus Perspektive der Psychotherapie berucksichtigt das klinische Case Management die sog. extratherapeutischen Variablen,...
Chapter
Die Idee, die bedeutungsvollen Narrationen (Geschichten, Erzählungen) von Klienten in den Fokus therapeutischer Aktivität zu nehmen, wurde von verschiedenen Pionieren psychotherapeutischer Ansätze verfolgt. Nach meinem unten dargelegten Verständnis konvergieren diese Ansätze mittlerweile in einem mehr oder weniger radikalen poststrukturalistischen Verständnis von Therapie: Es geht wesentlich um die »Oberfläche« der aktuell in der Therapie gemeinsam symbolisch erzeugten Wirklichkeit und weniger um die Suche nach »dahinter« oder »darunter« Liegendem, wie es strukturalistische Ansätze als Aufgabe vorgeben. Daraus resultiert eine Haltung, die — vereinfacht gesagt — weniger einem raffinierten Detektiv, sondern vielmehr einem erfahrenen, neugierigen Begleiterähnelt. Damit lassen sich narrative Ansätze leicht zu Ergebnissen aus der Wirkfaktorenforschung in Beziehung setzen (z. B. Common Factors, Hubble, Duncan & Miller, 1999), jedoch kaum exklusiv von einer Therapieschule für sich beanspruchen.
Article
Full-text available
Research on the process of psychological therapy aims to demonstrate how therapy works, partly to increase understanding, but primarily to increase effectiveness by pointing to the crucial ingredients which effect change. This paper aims to demonstrate some of the reasons why process research should be undertaken in the attempt to increase therapeutic effectiveness. A model of scientific inquiry suggests three broad types of process research: (1) studies which describe behaviours and processes occurring within therapy sessions (exploratory studies); (2) studies which investigate the links between specific psychotherapy processes and treatment outcome (hypothesis testing); (3) studies which examine the links between specific psychotherapy processes and theories of change (theory development). Using this typology, we describe key aspects of process research: what it is; what has been studied; the limitations of existing research. Descriptive studies have deepened understanding of the therapeutic process; however, a large number of reliable process-outcome links have been hard to establish. Comparative studies have been rare. Studies which are linked to models of change and which attempt to track therapist responsiveness are more complex and have been more promising. Most studies are beset by methodological difficulties. There are a number of promising future research possibilities and methods. Despite methodological challenges, the field is developing and research is encouraging. We argue that process research has a significant place in advancing our understanding of the complexity of therapeutic change, and hence in facilitating theory development and effective therapeutic interventions.
Article
Interpersonal theory, as well as relational models of psychoanalytic and cognitive therapy, posits the importance for positive treatment outcome of the therapist's becoming emotionally involved in the patient's interpersonal patterns. Using the same data as in this study, we have previously found associations between psychiatric patients' self-image and the staff's feelings towards them, and differential associations between staff feelings and outcome for different diagnostic groups. The purpose of the present study was to analyze potential connections between patients' self-image, staff feelings, and outcome. Twice a year, staff at small psychiatric units reported their feelings towards 63 psychotic and 21 borderline patients who had rated their self-image at the beginning of the treatment using the Structural Analysis of Social Behavior (SASB) introject and parent images. Feelings reported on the two first occasions at the beginning of the treatment were used. Outcome was assessed after 5 years. Correlation analyses found different associations between patient self-image and staff feelings for patients with favorable and less favorable outcome. The results indicated for psychotic patients associations between positive outcome and less distant staff feelings connected with the patient's freedom-giving introject, less unfree staff feelings connected with a negative image of mother and less positive feelings connected with a positive image of father. For the borderline patients, positive outcome was associated with the fact that a negative image of mother did not evoke helpful staff feelings, a positive image of the patient himself or herself did not evoke helpful staff feelings and a controlling image of father-evoked distant feelings.
Article
Full-text available
Deux modèles de surveillance et de rétroaction en continu révèlent des gains dans le cadre d'essais cliniques aléatoires (ECA) : le Outcome Questionnaire (OQ) System, de Lambert, et le Partners for Change Outcome Management System (PCOMS). L'article rappelle l'évolution du PCOMS, depuis une façon simple de discuter des avantages des services avec les clients jusqu'à son émergence comme pratique factuelle pour l'amélioration des résultats. Quoiqu'il s'inspire du modèle de Lambert, on y décèle des différences : le PCOMS est intégré au processus de psychothérapie en cours et inclut une discussion transparente de la rétroaction avec le client; il évalue l'alliance à chaque rencontre; l'échelle Outcome Rating Scale, plutôt qu'une liste de symptômes évalués sur une échelle Likert, est à la fois un outil et un instrument d'aboutissement requérant la collaboration du client. L'article présente la recherche à l'appui des caractéristiques psychométriques des mesures ainsi que l'intervention du PCOMS, suivies d'un sommaire du processus clinique. Des exemples de la transposition réussie à la santé comportementale sont offerts. On y décrit ensuite le processus de mise en vigueur qui favorise la participation du client, le rétablissement et la justice sociale, et les besoins du clinicien de première ligne sont discutés. Forte de neuf ECA et de l'appui de l'American Psychological Association, la rétroaction du client sur les résultats offre une façon pragmatique de passer de la recherche à la pratique.
Article
Full-text available
Reviews and elaborates the psychoanalytic concept of the working alliance. It is argued that various modes of psychotherapy can be meaningfully differentiated in terms of the kinds of working alliances (WA) embedded in them. Moreover, the strength, rather than the kind of WA, will prove to be the major factor in change achieved through psychotherapy. Strength of alliance will be a function of the goodness of fit of the respective personalities of patient and therapist to the demands of the WA. The WA includes 3 features: agreement on goals, assignment of tasks, and the development of bonds. (36 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)
Article
Full-text available
Using the Consistency Theory Micro-Process Analysis (CMP), the relation between two general change mechanisms, problem activation and resource activation, was studied with the focus on (1) patient behaviour and (2) therapist intervention. The unit of analysis was one minute. The results show that problem and resource activation play different roles in the process of change: problem activation alone did not reliably lead to therapeutic progress; only when combined with thorough resource activation could it unfold its therapeutic potential. Successful therapists chose different degrees of and different timing in applying the two change mechanisms than unsuccessful ones. The results indicate that clearer conceptualizations and specific therapist training are necessary to make better use of resource activation. Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Article
Full-text available
While highly effective, psychotherapy outcome studies suggest 5–14% of clients worsen while in treatment and that therapists are unable to identify a substantial portion of such cases. Methods to systematically collect feedback from psychotherapy clients are discussed and two systems for monitoring treatment response, feeding back this information, and assisting in problem-solving with such cases are described. Within these systems, obtaining client ratings of their relationship appear to be highly important. We summarize meta-analyses of the effects of these feedback systems (The combined weighted random effect size for the Partners for Change Outcome Management System was r = .23, 95% CI [.15, .31], p < .001, k = 3, n = 558; the effect size for the Feedback condition of the Outcome Questionnaire (OQ) system among not-on-track patients was r = .25, 95% CI [.15, .34], p < .001, k = 4, n = 454; the effect size for the Patient/Therapist Feedback condition of the OQ system among not-on-track patients was r = .25, 95% CI [.15, .34], p < .001, k = 3, n = 495; the effect size for the Clinical Support Tools feedback condition among not-on-track patients was r = .33, 95% CI [.25, .40], p < .001, k = 3, n = 535). The number of psychotherapy patients who deteriorate can be cut in half by use of these systems. We conclude with a series of practice implications, including that clinicians seriously consider making formal methods of collecting client feedback a routine part of their daily practice.
Article
Full-text available
This article reports on a research synthesis of the relation between alliance and the outcomes of individual psychotherapy. Included were over 200 research reports based on 190 independent data sources, covering more than 14,000 treatments. Research involving 5 or more adult participants receiving genuine (as opposed to analogue) treatments, where the author(s) referred to one of the independent variables as "alliance," "therapeutic alliance," "helping alliance," or "working alliance" were the inclusion criteria. All analyses were done using the assumptions of a random model. The overall aggregate relation between the alliance and treatment outcome (adjusted for sample size and non independence of outcome measures) was r = .275 (k = 190); the 95% confidence interval for this value was .25-.30. The statistical probability associated with the aggregated relation between alliance and outcome is p < .0001. The data collected for this meta-analysis were quite variable (heterogeneous). Potential variables such as assessment perspectives (client, therapist, observer), publication source, types of assessment methods and time of assessment were explored.
Clients: The neglected common factor
  • Garfield Bergin
Bergin and Garfield's Handbook of Psychotherapy and Behavioral Change (6th ed., pp. 258-297). New York, NY: Wiley. Bohart, A., & Tallman, K. (2010). Clients: The neglected common factor. In B.
The heart and soul of change: Delivering what works
  • S Duncan
  • B Miller
Duncan, S. Miller, B.Wampold, & M. Hubble (Eds.), The heart and soul of change: Delivering what works (2nd ed., pp. 83-12). Washington DC: American Psychological Association Press.
Processoutcome research Bergin and Garfield's Handbook of Psychotherapy and Behavioral Change On becoming a better therapist
  • P Crits-Christoph
  • Connolly Gibbons
  • M Mukherjee
Crits-Christoph, P., Connolly Gibbons, M., & Mukherjee, D. (2013). Processoutcome research. In M. J. Lambert (Ed.). Bergin and Garfield's Handbook of Psychotherapy and Behavioral Change (6th ed., pp. 298–340). New York, NY: Wiley. Duncan, B. (2010). On becoming a better therapist. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Becoming a master therapist The efficacy and effectiveness of psychotherapy
  • J Kottler
  • J Carlson
Kottler, J., & Carlson, J. (2014) Becoming a master therapist. New York: Wiley. Lambert, M. J. (2013). The efficacy and effectiveness of psychotherapy. In M. J.