The misleading Dodo Bird verdict. How much of the outcome variance is explained by common and specific factors?

Basit Öğe Kaydı
dc.authoriddE FELICE, GIULIO/0000-0002-6993-0914|Giuliani, Alessandro/0000-0002-4640-804X|Giuliani, Alessandro/0000-0002-4640-804X
dc.authorwosiddE FELICE, GIULIO/AFT-4082-2022
dc.authorwosidGiuliani, Alessandro/K-7589-2016
dc.authorwosidGiuliani, Alessandro/AAF-1740-2020
dc.contributor.authorde Felice, Giulio
dc.contributor.authorGiuliani, Alessandro
dc.contributor.authorHalfon, Sibel
dc.contributor.authorAndreassi, Silvia
dc.contributor.authorPaoloni, Giulia
dc.contributor.authorOrsucci, Franco F.
dc.date.accessioned2024-07-18T20:55:16Z
dc.date.available2024-07-18T20:55:16Z
dc.date.issued2019
dc.departmentİstanbul Bilgi Üniversitesien_US
dc.description.abstractThe literature on psychotherapy research makes use of the so-called Dodo Bird Verdict to show that therapeutic change owes more to common factors than to specific techniques. According to the bulk of the empirical literature, common factors explain 30-70% of therapy outcome variance, while specific factors account for between 5% and 15%. This formulation is based on the assumption that common and specific factors are independent of each other. The present study uses a systematic review of the literature to empirically demonstrate that common and specific factors of change are actually correlated. In other words, the prevalent practice in the literature of using correlated common and specific factors as independent predictors in classical ANOVA models is both statistically unsound and conceptually distorted. We offer several alternative proposals for a sensible re-evaluation of the Dodo Bird verdict.en_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/j.newideapsych.2019.01.006
dc.identifier.endpage55en_US
dc.identifier.issn0732-118X
dc.identifier.issn1873-3522
dc.identifier.scopus2-s2.0-85061353538en_US
dc.identifier.scopusqualityQ1en_US
dc.identifier.startpage50en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.newideapsych.2019.01.006
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/11411/8806
dc.identifier.volume54en_US
dc.identifier.wosWOS:000471357100007en_US
dc.identifier.wosqualityQ2en_US
dc.indekslendigikaynakWeb of Scienceen_US
dc.indekslendigikaynakScopusen_US
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.publisherPergamon-Elsevier Science Ltden_US
dc.relation.ispartofNew Ideas in Psychologyen_US
dc.relation.publicationcategoryMakale - Uluslararası Hakemli Dergi - Kurum Öğretim Elemanıen_US
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/closedAccessen_US
dc.subjectDodo Bird Verdicten_US
dc.subjectCommon Factorsen_US
dc.subjectSpecific Factorsen_US
dc.subjectOutcome Varianceen_US
dc.subjectComplexity Scienceen_US
dc.subjectTherapeutic Allianceen_US
dc.subjectTransference Interpretationsen_US
dc.subjectPsychotherapyen_US
dc.subjectModelen_US
dc.subjectWorken_US
dc.subjectPatternsen_US
dc.subjectExposureen_US
dc.subjectPatienten_US
dc.subjectHelpen_US
dc.titleThe misleading Dodo Bird verdict. How much of the outcome variance is explained by common and specific factors?
dc.typeArticle

Dosyalar

Koleksiyon

Web of Science Indexed Publications
Scopus Indexed Publications