Is Cognitive Behavioral Therapy as Effective as Clinicians Believe?
Despite Longstanding Authority, New Research Questions CBT's Reliability
For nearly 50 years, cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) has claimed higher scientific authority among the vast legion of psychotherapy approaches as a result of having more research demonstrate its effectiveness than any other therapeutic method. Increasingly, that track record of empirical evidence has been acknowledged and even translated into government funders and insurance companies requiring therapists to use CBT if they want to be reimbursed. But recent developments have raised questions about whether the effectiveness and scientific bona fides of CBT have been overstated.
Developed largely within university settings concerned with quantifiable research results, CBT has been the focus of far more studies than any other therapy model. Almost 90 percent of the approaches deemed empirically supported by the American Psychological Association’s Division 12 Task Force on Psychological Interventions involve cognitive behavioral treatments. More than 269 meta-analyses have been conducted on CBT, and a 2008 survey by a team of Boston University researchers identified 1,165 CBT outcome studies with a wide range of clients, including those suffering from depression, bipolar disorder, eating disorders, criminal behavior, and chronic pain and fatigue.
But recent findings about the effectiveness of CBT have made waves among psychotherapy outcome researchers. A 2013 meta-analysis published in Clinical Psychology Review comparing CBT to other therapies reported that it had failed to “provide corroborative evidence for the conjecture that CBT is superior to bona fide non-CBT treatments.” In November 2014, an 8-week clinical study conducted by Sweden’s Lund University concluded that CBT was no more effective than mindfulness-based therapy for those suffering from depression and anxiety.
The latest blow to CBT’s claims to therapeutic supremacy came with the publication this past May of a meta-analysis conducted by psychologists Tom Johnsen, of UiT, the Arctic University of Norway, and Oddgeir Friborg, of the University of Tromso, titled “The Effects of Cognitive Behavioral Therapy as an Anti-Depressive Treatment Is [sic] Falling.” Published in the APA’s Psychological Bulletin, the study tracked 70 CBT outcome studies conducted between 1977 and 2014---between the heyday of CBT founders Aaron Beck and Albert Ellis and the most recent studies. Johnsen and Friborg concluded that “the effects of CBT have declined linearly and steadily since its introduction, as measured by patients’ self-reports, clinicians’ ratings, and rates of remission.” According to Johnsen, even the rosy quantitative findings about CBT in its early days should be taken with a grain of salt. “Just seeing a decrease in symptoms,” he says, “doesn’t translate into greater wellbeing.”
Trying to explain the reason for the decline, Johnsen and Friborg suggest that an important factor is the differences among the varying forms of CBT being used in the studies over the years. Today, they argue, there exist two types of CBT: the “pure” CBT, created by Beck and Ellis, reflecting the protocol-driven, highly goal-oriented, more standardized approach they first popularized, in contrast with the looser, more integrative approach of modern CBT. Newer approaches, they believe, often stray from CBT’s original tenets, which included explicitly outlining the treatment agenda at the start of therapy, regularly soliciting client feedback, and including homework assignments after every session. According to Johnsen and Friborg, “Proper training, considerable practice, and competent supervision are very important to provide CBT in an efficacious manner... Therapists who frequently depart from the [Beck] manual demonstrate poorer treatment effects than therapists who follow it.”
Another hit to CBT’s reputation came in 2012 from Sweden’s National Board of Health and Welfare, which, after placing CBT at the top of a list of recommended treatments for depression and anxiety, concluded after a two-year trial period that CBT had no noticeable advantage over alternative therapies and that increasing numbers of clients were dropping out of treatment after finding it ineffective. By that time, more than two billion Swedish kronor had been spent in financial incentives to therapists who made CBT their preferred mode of treatment.
Scott Miller---a psychologist who runs the International Center for Clinical Excellence and spent time in Sweden during the period when the National Board of Health and Welfare was trying to incentivize practitioners to use CBT---believes that the fundamental problem had less to do with CBT itself than with a misguided notion about the factors that make psychotherapy effective. “Our field struggles with the notion that treatments work like medicine,” says Miller. “It’s as if people coming to therapy have a variety of infections that different psychotherapy models will attack like antibiotics. But the truth is that there isn’t any evidence that one therapeutic method achieves better results than any other.”
Some critics of the method have jumped at the recent negative findings to argue that alternative therapies are just as effective as CBT, or even better, but its supporters argue that plenty of reasons to question those findings remain. Steve Hollon, a psychologist at Vanderbilt University who specializes in treating depression, argues that, because conditions of replicated trials can be so wildly different from original ones, it’s unsurprising that results, too, can differ. He agrees with Johnsen and Friborg that studies conducted under Beck’s supervision, for instance, might have been more concerned with methodological fidelity. “It may be that the more recent studies don’t have the same methodological rigor,” Hollon says. “It may be that we’re just seeing the more variable results you’re going to get in the real world.”
As much as we’d like research to provide tidy conclusions and confer legitimacy on our preferred treatment methods, it often just adds to our questions about how to understand what goes on in the consulting room. But in the end, both CBT’s advocates and its critics can agree on two things: no form of psychotherapy offers a reliable miracle cure, and it’s never easy making neat science out of the often nebulous encounter we call psychotherapy.
This blog is excerpted from “Has CBT Lost Its Mojo?" Want to read more articles like this? Subscribe to Psychotherapy Networker Today!
Developed largely within university settings concerned with quantifiable research results, CBT has been the focus of far more studies than any other therapy model. Almost 90 percent of the approaches deemed empirically supported by the American Psychological Association’s Division 12 Task Force on Psychological Interventions involve cognitive behavioral treatments. More than 269 meta-analyses have been conducted on CBT, and a 2008 survey by a team of Boston University researchers identified 1,165 CBT outcome studies with a wide range of clients, including those suffering from depression, bipolar disorder, eating disorders, criminal behavior, and chronic pain and fatigue.
But recent findings about the effectiveness of CBT have made waves among psychotherapy outcome researchers. A 2013 meta-analysis published in Clinical Psychology Review comparing CBT to other therapies reported that it had failed to “provide corroborative evidence for the conjecture that CBT is superior to bona fide non-CBT treatments.” In November 2014, an 8-week clinical study conducted by Sweden’s Lund University concluded that CBT was no more effective than mindfulness-based therapy for those suffering from depression and anxiety.
The latest blow to CBT’s claims to therapeutic supremacy came with the publication this past May of a meta-analysis conducted by psychologists Tom Johnsen, of UiT, the Arctic University of Norway, and Oddgeir Friborg, of the University of Tromso, titled “The Effects of Cognitive Behavioral Therapy as an Anti-Depressive Treatment Is [sic] Falling.” Published in the APA’s Psychological Bulletin, the study tracked 70 CBT outcome studies conducted between 1977 and 2014---between the heyday of CBT founders Aaron Beck and Albert Ellis and the most recent studies. Johnsen and Friborg concluded that “the effects of CBT have declined linearly and steadily since its introduction, as measured by patients’ self-reports, clinicians’ ratings, and rates of remission.” According to Johnsen, even the rosy quantitative findings about CBT in its early days should be taken with a grain of salt. “Just seeing a decrease in symptoms,” he says, “doesn’t translate into greater wellbeing.”
Trying to explain the reason for the decline, Johnsen and Friborg suggest that an important factor is the differences among the varying forms of CBT being used in the studies over the years. Today, they argue, there exist two types of CBT: the “pure” CBT, created by Beck and Ellis, reflecting the protocol-driven, highly goal-oriented, more standardized approach they first popularized, in contrast with the looser, more integrative approach of modern CBT. Newer approaches, they believe, often stray from CBT’s original tenets, which included explicitly outlining the treatment agenda at the start of therapy, regularly soliciting client feedback, and including homework assignments after every session. According to Johnsen and Friborg, “Proper training, considerable practice, and competent supervision are very important to provide CBT in an efficacious manner... Therapists who frequently depart from the [Beck] manual demonstrate poorer treatment effects than therapists who follow it.”
Another hit to CBT’s reputation came in 2012 from Sweden’s National Board of Health and Welfare, which, after placing CBT at the top of a list of recommended treatments for depression and anxiety, concluded after a two-year trial period that CBT had no noticeable advantage over alternative therapies and that increasing numbers of clients were dropping out of treatment after finding it ineffective. By that time, more than two billion Swedish kronor had been spent in financial incentives to therapists who made CBT their preferred mode of treatment.
Scott Miller---a psychologist who runs the International Center for Clinical Excellence and spent time in Sweden during the period when the National Board of Health and Welfare was trying to incentivize practitioners to use CBT---believes that the fundamental problem had less to do with CBT itself than with a misguided notion about the factors that make psychotherapy effective. “Our field struggles with the notion that treatments work like medicine,” says Miller. “It’s as if people coming to therapy have a variety of infections that different psychotherapy models will attack like antibiotics. But the truth is that there isn’t any evidence that one therapeutic method achieves better results than any other.”
Some critics of the method have jumped at the recent negative findings to argue that alternative therapies are just as effective as CBT, or even better, but its supporters argue that plenty of reasons to question those findings remain. Steve Hollon, a psychologist at Vanderbilt University who specializes in treating depression, argues that, because conditions of replicated trials can be so wildly different from original ones, it’s unsurprising that results, too, can differ. He agrees with Johnsen and Friborg that studies conducted under Beck’s supervision, for instance, might have been more concerned with methodological fidelity. “It may be that the more recent studies don’t have the same methodological rigor,” Hollon says. “It may be that we’re just seeing the more variable results you’re going to get in the real world.”
As much as we’d like research to provide tidy conclusions and confer legitimacy on our preferred treatment methods, it often just adds to our questions about how to understand what goes on in the consulting room. But in the end, both CBT’s advocates and its critics can agree on two things: no form of psychotherapy offers a reliable miracle cure, and it’s never easy making neat science out of the often nebulous encounter we call psychotherapy.
This blog is excerpted from “Has CBT Lost Its Mojo?" Want to read more articles like this? Subscribe to Psychotherapy Networker Today!
Topic: Anxiety/Depression | Brain Science & Psychotherapy
Tags: Aaron Beck | cbt | cognitive behavioral therapy | mind-body | psychotherapy | therapist | Psychotherapy Networker | networker | chris lyford | Scott Miller
Comments - (existing users please login first)
5 Comments
Friday, January 12, 2018 7:45:13 AM | posted by Terry Finlay
CBT is like a Band-Aid on a gaping chest wound. It may superficially seem to help on the surface but ultimately the wound will overpower the dressing.
Wednesday, January 11, 2017 5:30:15 PM | posted by Danny Ford (Psychotherapist in Leeds, UK)
I agree with Chris that if you haven't travelled the road, you can't effectively lead another toward the light. I just posted a blog myself on the differences between CBT and Integrative Psychotherapy, which is what I practice. I put the link above as my website url. It's a shame that CBT is purported to be the gold standard of therapy as this does a huge disservice to people seeking help. I have worked with so many people who tried CBT before coming to see me, who found it didn't help (enough).
Friday, January 22, 2016 3:37:14 PM | posted by Chris
Here again it seems the same thing is being demonstrated, or at least suggested, over and again.by psychotherapy research of this kind. No modality is in-and-of itself more efficacious than another (as Miller and others findings emphasize). Why? Because its so much about the person of the therapist, the person of the client, what does or doesn't happen between them, and the various human intangibles. So called "Supershrink" findings, while difficult to quantify or concretize, will never change and will always be matters most.
My experience of/with peers who practice strict CBT and/or other evidence-based, protocol driven forms of therapy tend to grossly undervalue the role of relational and intangible human factors. I believe this gets unconsciously transmitted to the client, and so the client is less incentivized to buy into the relationship, give up symptoms and truly invest in their own growth. Outcome research on these modalities then invariably reflects lack of sustained gains.
I think of Yalom's observation that when CBT and other evidence-based therapists need help, they tend not to go to like-minded/trained therapists. I've seen evidence of this (no pun intended:). I've had more than one CBT therapist come to me for therapy through the years. They're often silently and secretly disillusioned with their training and results, having realized that protocols, manualized prescriptions and homework assignments, while temporarily effective (sometimes) at reducing distress/symptoms, just ain't where the magic is.
Ultimately, it reinforces my belief that if there were more emphasis on personal therapy experience amongst therapists in training institutions across the board (not just psychoanalytic) there might be less disagreement, confusion and even warring about what really matters in psychotherapy.
Doing therapy is an inside job if there ever was, and I suspect this will always be. If you haven't traveled the road, you can't effectively lead another toward the light.
My experience of/with peers who practice strict CBT and/or other evidence-based, protocol driven forms of therapy tend to grossly undervalue the role of relational and intangible human factors. I believe this gets unconsciously transmitted to the client, and so the client is less incentivized to buy into the relationship, give up symptoms and truly invest in their own growth. Outcome research on these modalities then invariably reflects lack of sustained gains.
I think of Yalom's observation that when CBT and other evidence-based therapists need help, they tend not to go to like-minded/trained therapists. I've seen evidence of this (no pun intended:). I've had more than one CBT therapist come to me for therapy through the years. They're often silently and secretly disillusioned with their training and results, having realized that protocols, manualized prescriptions and homework assignments, while temporarily effective (sometimes) at reducing distress/symptoms, just ain't where the magic is.
Ultimately, it reinforces my belief that if there were more emphasis on personal therapy experience amongst therapists in training institutions across the board (not just psychoanalytic) there might be less disagreement, confusion and even warring about what really matters in psychotherapy.
Doing therapy is an inside job if there ever was, and I suspect this will always be. If you haven't traveled the road, you can't effectively lead another toward the light.
Tuesday, January 5, 2016 5:40:38 PM | posted by Tom
Energy Psychology tools such as Thought Field Therapy/Emotional Freedom Technique (TFT/EFT), aka tapping, have a far better, proven track record than CBT for a wider range of issues, including trauma. Research with veterans showed an 85% success rate in less time than CBT and that CBT outcomes were not necessarily sustainable where as the Energy Psychology Research demonstrated that outcomes were sustainable.
Sunday, January 3, 2016 1:31:50 PM | posted by Delphine
Separate the wheat from the chaff; namely, when all is said and done, no mater what the therapeutic modality, at the end of the day, it is the quality of the therapeutic relationship that makes the difference. The problem lies in trying to explain how the nature of the therapeutic relationship can sometimes have a profoundly positive effect. Super shrinks all seem to have some things in common; true and deep empathy, the absolute honest desire to help their clients, and the belief that they can.
