Search

Objective The purpose of Study 1 was to examine the relative efficacy of evidence-based treatments (EBTs) when compared to treatment-as-usual (TAU) for adults diagnosed with a personality disorder (PD). The purpose of Study 2 was to investigate the strength of the differences between bona fide psychotherapeutic treatments for PDs. Method Two separate computerized searches were conducted of: (a) studies that directly compared an EBT with a TAU for treatment of PDs, or (b) studies that compared at least two bona fide treatments for PDs. Meta-analytic methods were used to estimate the effectiveness of the treatments when compared to one another and to model how various confounding variables impacted the results of this comparative research. Results A total of 30 studies (Study 1; N = 1662) were included in the meta-analysis comparing EBTs to TAU. A total of 12 studies (Study 2; N = 723) were included in the meta-analysis comparing bona fide treatments. Study 1 found that EBTs were superior to TAU, although the TAU conditions were not comparable in many respects (e.g., not psychotherapy, lacking supervision, lacking training, etc.) to the EBT and there was significant heterogeneity in the effects. Study 2 found that some bona fide treatments were superior to others.

Many researchers accept that trauma-focused treatments are superior to non-trauma focused treatments for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). However, Benish, Imel, and Wampold (2008) recently published a meta-analysis of clinical trials directly comparing 'bona fide' PTSD treatments that failed to reject the null hypothesis that PTSD treatments are similarly effective. They concluded that the results of previous meta-analysis may have been influenced by several confounds, including the use of control treatments, to make conclusions about the relative efficacy of specific PTSD treatments. Ehlers et al. (2010) claim that the selection procedures of the Benish et al. meta-analysis were biased and cite results from individual studies and previous meta-analyses that suggest trauma-focused psychological treatments are superior to non-trauma focused treatments. We first offer a review and justification of the coding criteria and procedure used in Benish et al. In addition, we discuss the appropriateness of utilizing treatments designed to control for non-specifics or common factors such as 'supportive therapy' for determining the relative efficacy of specific PTSD treatments. Finally, we note several additional confounds, such as therapist effects, allegiance, and alteration of legitimate protocols, in PTSD research and describe conceptual problems involved in the classification scheme used to determine the "trauma focus" of interventions, which lead to inappropriate conclusions about what works in the treatment of PTSD.