Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Institutional promotion of psychotherapy manuals as a requirement for evidence-based treatments (EBTs) yields the assumption that manualized treatment is more effective than nonmanualized treatment. This systematic review examines empirical evidence for this claim.
METHODS: An electronic database search identified studies that directly or indirectly compared manual-based and non-manual-based treatment.
RESULTS: Six studies directly compared manualized and nonmanualized treatment (Hypothesis 1). None support manual superiority. Eight meta-analyses indirectly assessed effect sizes of manual-based treatment and control groups (Hypothesis 2). Three support manual superiority, five do not. One meta-analysis and 15 further studies addressed manual adherence as an indirect indicator of manual efficacy (Hypothesis 3). The meta-analysis concluded that manual adherence does not affect outcome, additional studies provided inconclusive results.
CONCLUSIONS: Manualized treatment is not empirically supported as more effective than nonmanualized treatment. While manual-based treatment may be attractive as a research tool, it should not be promoted as being superior to nonmanualized psychotherapy for clinical practice.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 329-343 |
| Number of pages | 15 |
| Journal | Journal of Clinical Psychology |
| Volume | 75 |
| Issue number | 3 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - Mar 2019 |
| Externally published | Yes |
Bibliographical note
© 2018 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.Research programs
- ESSB PSY
Fingerprint
Dive into the research topics of 'To manualize, or not to manualize: Is that still the question? A systematic review of empirical evidence for manual superiority in psychological treatment'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.Cite this
- APA
- Author
- BIBTEX
- Harvard
- Standard
- RIS
- Vancouver