OBJECTIVE: The experiencing scale (EXP) is an often used measure of client's depth of processing and meaning-making in-session. While research suggests that "client experiencing" predicts psychotherapy outcomes, this relationship has never been summarized in a meta-analysis. We examine this specific client factor as an in-session process predictor of good treatment outcomes. METHOD: A meta-analysis quantified the relationship between client experiencing and therapy outcomes using a total of 10 studies and 406 clients. RESULTS: Analysis indicated that client experiencing is a small to medium predictor of standardized symptom improvements at final treatment outcomes with an effect of r = -.19 (95% CI -.10 to -.29), which we consider a "best estimate" for robustly quantifying the association between EXP and self-reported clinical outcomes. However, effects were higher (i.e., r = -.25) when observational measures of outcome were also included: Subgroup analyses indicated that EXP effects were moderated by the modality of outcome measurement (i.e., symptom reports vs. observational measures). On the other hand, statistical index, treatment phase, or treatment approach did not have significant impacts, which addresses some perennial questions in the EXP literature. CONCLUSIONS: Client experiencing is a small to medium predictor of treatment outcomes and a probable common factor.
OBJECTIVE: The experiencing scale (EXP) is an often used measure of client's depth of processing and meaning-making in-session. While research suggests that "client experiencing" predicts psychotherapy outcomes, this relationship has never been summarized in a meta-analysis. We examine this specific client factor as an in-session process predictor of good treatment outcomes. METHOD: A meta-analysis quantified the relationship between client experiencing and therapy outcomes using a total of 10 studies and 406 clients. RESULTS: Analysis indicated that client experiencing is a small to medium predictor of standardized symptom improvements at final treatment outcomes with an effect of r = -.19 (95% CI -.10 to -.29), which we consider a "best estimate" for robustly quantifying the association between EXP and self-reported clinical outcomes. However, effects were higher (i.e., r = -.25) when observational measures of outcome were also included: Subgroup analyses indicated that EXP effects were moderated by the modality of outcome measurement (i.e., symptom reports vs. observational measures). On the other hand, statistical index, treatment phase, or treatment approach did not have significant impacts, which addresses some perennial questions in the EXP literature. CONCLUSIONS: Client experiencing is a small to medium predictor of treatment outcomes and a probable common factor.
Authors: John R Keefe; Zeeshan M Huque; Robert J DeRubeis; Jacques P Barber; Barbara L Milrod; Dianne L Chambless Journal: Psychotherapy (Chic) Date: 2019-03-14