Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorWinter, David
dc.identifier.citationWinter , D 2010 , ' Editorial - allegiance revisited ' , European Journal of Psychotherapy and Counselling , vol. 12 , no. 1 , pp. 3-9 .
dc.identifier.otherPURE: 357635
dc.identifier.otherPURE UUID: deb5705b-d28e-4616-9570-e93e812b70cf
dc.identifier.otherScopus: 79960447437
dc.descriptionOriginal editorial can be found at : Copyright Taylor & Francis
dc.description.abstractIt is now ten years since Luborsky et al. (1999) published their classic paper on the research’s therapy allegiance, indicating that measures of this explained 69 per cent of the variance in outcomes in comparative studies of psychological therapies. Indeed, apparent differences in outcome between therapies may all but disappear when account is taken of researcher allegiance (Elliot et al., 2004; Luborsky et al., 2002; Robinson, Berman, & Neimeyer, 1990). What, then, is the purpose of a further collection of papers on a topic that has been described as ‘by now a well-established phenomenon in psychotherapy research’ (Jacobson, 1999)? Firstly, the extent of allegiance effects has been disputed, and various questions concerning researcher allegiance remain unanswered.en
dc.relation.ispartofEuropean Journal of Psychotherapy and Counselling
dc.titleEditorial - allegiance revisiteden
dc.contributor.institutionDepartment of Psychology
dc.contributor.institutionHealth & Human Sciences Research Institute
dc.description.statusPeer reviewed
rioxxterms.typeJournal Article/Review

Files in this item


There are no files associated with this item.

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record