.
CC/NUMBER 13
This Week’s Citation Classic —
MARCH 28,1983
Smith M L & Glass G V. Meta-analysis of psychotherapy outcome studies.
Amer. Psycho!. 32:752-60, 1977. I
[University of Colorado, Boulder, CO]
The outcome of 375 studies, in which clients troversy. We were wrong, a fact which is not
who received psychotherapy were com- in itself interesting, but which certainly ex-
pared with untreated persons, were quan- plains the selection of the article as a Cita-
tified and statistically summarized. Findings tion Classic. The work has been praised by
showed psychotherapy to be effective and advocates and vilified by opponents of psy-
that the different varieties of therapydo not chotherapy as well as those who advocate
produce differential effects. Both good and specific forms of therapy such as psychoac-
poor designs produced positive effects. [The tive drugs or behavioral treatments. The lat-
Science Citation mndex’~(SCI~) and the Social ter groups have a stake in the aggrandize-
Sciences Citation Index® (SSC!®) indicate ment of their therapies over competitors’
that this paper has been cited in over 180 and therefore weredispleased by the finding
publications since 1977.] of no differential efficacy among the forms
of therapy. The work has been called every-
thing from ‘mega-silliness’ and ‘blossoming
nose blemish’ to a ‘classic of social science.’
The work has also attracted considerable at-
tention, both positive and negative, from
research methodologists because it was an
early example of the technique of meta-
Mary Lee Smith analysis (the quantitative synthesis of
and results of extant research studies). Re-
Gene V. Glass searchers who have subsequently applied
University of Colorado the technique to other bodies of literature
Campus Box 249 have cited the article. These facts explain
Boulder, CO 80309 the citation rate, which, as anyone [Link],
is a mixed blessing.
“Originally, the psychotherapy outcome
January 20, 1983 literature was selected as an appropriate
test of meta-analysis. Funding was received
from the Spencer Foundation for the years
“For 30 years, scholars have argued over 1975-1976. The findings were first presented
questions such as, ‘Does psychotherapy as part of Glass’s presidential address to the
work better than the mere passage of time American Educational Research Associa-
or the kind attention of another person in tion. Submitted to the American Psycholo-
alleviating psychological maladjustment gist, the manuscript was accepted with
and distress?’ ‘What form of therapy minor revisions. What followed were the
(behavioral, cognitive, psychodynamic, reactions noted above, the reprinting of the
drug) is the most efficacious?’ ‘How scien- article in several books, and renewed fund-
tifically rigorous are the studies that ing from the Spencer Foundation. During
demonstrate the effectiveness of psycho- 1977-1978, we added nearly 100 studies of
therapy?’ psychotherapy effectiveness and a separate
“Individual researchers by the hundreds meta-analysis of research on the effec-
have addressed these questions, and re- tiveness of drugs compared with psycho-
search reviewers have summarized the therapy. Eventually these analyses 1 were
studies to arrive at overall conclusions. The transformed into a book manuscript which
conclusions have been energetically rebut- also documented the history of the con-
ted by scholars representing adversarial troversy as well as the methodological
philosophies and interests. Perhaps we were arguments about controlled studies of psy-
naive to believe that by applying a new set chotherapy and meta-analysis. Since then,
of procedures for extracting the meaning we have evoked more variegated 2 reactions,
from large collections of studies—proce- several successful3 replications, a follow-up
dures that are quantified, replicable, and of later studies, and considerable method-
objective—that we would settle the con- ological work on meta-analysis.”4
1. Sllh ML, GUam C V & Miler TI. Benefits ofpsychotherapy.
Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1980. 269 p.
2. L.~daa~JT & Dawas KM. Smut and Glass’ conclusions stand up to acrutiny. Amer. Psycho!. 37:504-17. 1982.
3. ShapIro 1) A & ShapIro D. Mets-analysis of comparative therapy Outcome studies: a replication and refinement.
Psycho!. Bull. 92:581-604, 1982.
4. Glais G V, McGaw B & Smith ML. Mew-analysis in social research. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, 1981. 279 p.
CURRENT CONTENTS®
20 S&BS ®1983 by SI®
