Encyclopedia of Couple and Family Therapy

2019 Edition
| Editors: Jay L. Lebow, Anthony L. Chambers, Douglas C. Breunlin

Meta-analysis of Treatment Outcomes in Couple and Family Therapy

  • Alan CarrEmail author
Reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-49425-8_699

Name of Concept

Meta-analysis

Introduction

In couple and family therapy (CFT) research, meta-analysis is a method for combining the results of multiple treatment outcome studies and expressing conclusions about how well CFT works using effect-size statistics, such as the standardized difference between a CFT group and a control group. Meta-analysis is a way of reaching unbiased and precise conclusions about the outcome of CFT. Systematic reviewing procedures are used to identify all relevant studies in an unbiased way. Meta-analytic statistical procedures are used to synthesize the results of these into a single statistical index called an effect size. In meta-analysis, the methods used are described in sufficient detail to allow other researchers to replicate the process.

There are good reasons for wanting to make unbiased, precise statistical statements about the positive effects of CFT. A crucial question for policy makers is: Does CFT work for common mental health and psychosocial...

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Baldwin, S. A., & Shadish, W. R. (2011). A primer on meta-analysis in clinical psychology. Journal of Experimental Psychopathology, 2(2), 249–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Carr, A. (2014a). The evidence-base for family therapy and systemic interventions for child-focused problems. Journal of Family Therapy, 36(2), 107–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Carr, A. (2014b). The evidence-base for couple therapy, family therapy and systemic interventions for adult-focused problems. Journal of Family Therapy, 36(2), 158–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cooper, H., Hedges, L., & Valentine, J. (2009). Handbook of research synthesis and meta-analysis (2nd ed.). New York: Russell Sage.Google Scholar
  5. Higgins, J. P. T., Altman, D. G., Gøtzsche, P. C., Moher, D., Oxman, A. D., & Savovic, J. (2011). The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomized trials. British Medical Journal, 343, d5928.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D., & The PRISMA Group. (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. PLoS Medicine, 6(7), e1000097.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed1000097.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. Pinquart, M., Oslejsek, B., & Teubert, D. (2016). Efficacy of systemic therapy on adults with mental disorders: A meta-analysis. Psychotherapy Research, 26(2), 241–257.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Riedinger, A., Pinquart, M., & Teubert, D. (2015). Effects of systemic therapy on mental health of children and adolescents: A meta-analysis. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 46, 880.  https://doi.org/10.1080/15374416.2015.1063427.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Shadish, W. R., & Baldwin, S. A. (2003). Meta-analysis of MFT interventions. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 29(4), 547–570.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Shadish, W. R., Montgomery, L. M., Wilson, P., Wilson, M. R., Bright, I., & Okwumabua, T. (1993). Effects of family and marital psychotherapies: A meta-analysis. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 61(6), 992–1002.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of PsychologyUniversity College Dublin and Clanwilliam Institute DublinDublinIreland

Section editors and affiliations

  • Corinne Datchi
    • 1
  • Ryan M. Earl
    • 2
  1. 1.Seton Hall UniversitySouth OrangeUSA
  2. 2.The Family Institute at Northwestern UniversityEvanstonUSA