You’ve been busy!  Stocking up on food.  Telecommuting.  Home schooling your kids.  And figuring out how you are going to pay bills while not drawing a paycheck or being able to meet with clients face to face.

Many clinicians I know are rapidly transitioning to providing services online.  As you might imagine, many of those work feedback-informed, using the ORS and SRS at each visit to guide and inform treatment decisions.   In fact, I’ve noticed something curious since the COVID-19 crisis began: downloads of the measures from my website are up, significantly — 21% more compared to the prior three month period.

All good but, how to employ the measures online?

Thanks to ICCE Certified Trainer, Stacy Bancroft for pulling together these tips:

1. Use the standardized oral scripting to administer the tools.  It’s available in the download file.
2. Share your screen.  Display the ORS and SRS and then use your finger, moving slowly along each item until they tell you to stop.
3. Use one of the three, authorized software systems.  Each, in slightly different ways, make it possible to email, text or send links to the forms and have them completed either manually or electronically.  Below, you will find several brief, how-to videos for the various systems.
4. Finally, connect with the members of the International Center for Clinical Excellence clinical community.  It’s free to join.  Just click the link below my name.

Until next time, in these uncertain times, I wish you health, safety, and peace.

Scott

Scott D. Miller, Ph.D.
Director, International Center for Clinical Excellence

For FIT-OUTCOMES.COM Users:

For MYOUTCOMES.COM Users:

For OpenFIT Users:

In 2007, my colleagues and I published an article entitled, Supershrinks: What’s the Secret of their Success?  In it, we reported on the status of our then decade long effort to understand why some psychotherapists were consistently more effective than others.  Although the phenomenon had first been reported in the mid-1970’s by psychologist David F. Ricks, accounting for the superior effectiveness of these clinicians had eluded scholarly explanation.  Our objective was as simple: figure out what the best were doing so that the rest of us could copy it and improve our results.

After many false starts and empirical dead ends, it turned out the key was “the best of the best simply work harder at improving their performance than others do” (p. 30).  Known in the expert and expertise literature as “deliberate practice,” their efforts to improve were not merely about putting in hours, but rather spending time reaching for performance objectives just beyond their level of proficiency.  Decades of research had documented the impact of deliberate practice across a wide range of human endeavors including sports, music, surgery, teaching, computer programming, and chess.  Surprisingly, despite this extensive evidence base, until the publication of our article, the term, much less the empirically-based process, had never appeared in any study or publication about psychotherapy.

Four years passed before the next publication on the subject appeared.  In The Road to Mastery, we provided an update about our research, focusing this time on the important role environment played in successful deliberate practice.  In a number of practical applications around the world, we’d discovered that, without a supportive community, the majority failed to sustain their efforts.  Turns out, deliberate practice is hard.  In the article, we described the type of, and even places where, clinicians could get the backing they needed to persevere.

In 2015, we published the very first empirical research in a peer reviewed journal on the role of deliberate practice in psychotherapy.  During the six long years the study was being conducted, we had no idea whether our earlier work would be confirmed or discredited.  Needless to say, we were pleased and relieved when the analysis of the data revealed the most effective practitioners devoted 2.5 times more hours to deliberate practice than clinicians with average outcomes.  Further analysis showed factors long thought to influence the therapist effectiveness were shown to contribute nothing, including years of experience, gender, age, professional discipline, caseload, and theoretical orientation.

By this point, many other projects were underway.

• A review of 40 years of outcome research seeking to determine whether the overall effectiveness of psychotherapy was stagnant, improving, or declining;
• A study of the impact of therapist experience on effectiveness;
• A meta-analysis comparing the impact of deliberate practice versus “mere time spent” engaged in a particular activity;
• A study investigating whether average therapists could improve their results by engaging in deliberate practice; and
• A randomized controlled trial investigating the impact of a specific deliberate practice activity on therapist relationship skills.

The results have challenged many long held beliefs.  More importantly, however, they’ve provided the first concrete evidence of a pathway for accomplishing what had long eluded the field — reliably improving the outcomes of individual therapists.

Taking each in order, here’s what we’ve found:

• Despite the proliferation of treatment models, the overall outcome of psychotherapy has not improved in four decades;
• Contrary to tradition and belief, therapist effectiveness actually declines as experience in the field increases;
• The impact of deliberate practice on performance is twice that of “mere time spent”;
• Engaging in deliberate practice slowly, steadily and significantly improves therapist effectiveness; and
• Targeted deliberate practice training significantly improves the acquisition and generalization of fundamental relationship skills.

For those interested in the details, click here.  Complete the form (just your name and email) and I’ll send you the eight studies referenced above!  I’ll also put you on a list to be notified when our new book, Better Results: Using Deliberate Practice to Improve Therapeutic Effectiveness, is released from the American Psychological Association.  It not only summarizes the research, but lays out in step-by-step fashion how to apply the findings in your professional development efforts.

OK, that’s it for now.  Until next time,

Scott

Scott D. Miller, Ph.D.
Director, International Center for Clinical Excellence

“Everyone understands how a toilet works, don’t you?” ask cognitive scientists Sloman and Fernbach.

The answer, according to their research, is likely no.  Turns out, peoples’ confidence in their knowledge far outstrips their ability to explain how any number of simple, every day items work — a coffeemaker, zipper, bicycle and yes, a toilet.   More troubling, as complexity increases, the problem only worsens.  Thus, if you struggle to explain how glue holds two pieces of paper together — and most, despite being certain they can, cannot — good luck accounting for how an activity as complicated as psychotherapy works.

So pronounced is our inability to recognize the depth of our ignorance, the two researchers have given the phenomenon a name: the “Illusion of Explanatory Depth.”  To be sure, in most instances, not being able to adequately and accurately explain isn’t a problem.  Put simply, knowing how to make something work is more important in everyday life than knowing how it actually works:

• Push the handle on the toilet and the water goes down the drain, replaced by fresh water from the tank;
• Depress the lever on the toaster, threads of bare wire heat up, and the bread begins to roast;
• Replace negative cognitions with positive ones and depression lifts.

Simple, right?

Our limited understanding serves us well until we need to build or improve upon any one of the foregoing.  In those instances, lacking true understanding, we could literally believe anything — in the case of the toilet, a little man in the rowboat inside the tank makes it flush — and be just as successful.   While such apparent human frailty might, at first pass, arouse feelings of shame or stupidity, truth is operating on a “need to know” basis makes good sense.  It’s both pragmatic and economical.  In life, you cannot possibly, and don’t really need to know everything.

And yet, therein lies the paradox: we passionately believe we do.  That is, until we are asked to provide a detailed, step-by-step, scientifically sound accounting — only then, does humility and the potential for learning enter the picture.

When research on routine outcome monitoring (ROM) first began to appear, the reported impact on outcomes was astonishing.  Some claimed it was the most important development in the field since the invention of psychotherapy!  They were also quite certain how it worked: like a blood test, outcome and alliance measures enabled clinicians to check progress and make adjustments when needed.  Voila!

Eight years ago, I drew attention to the assertions being made about ROM, warning “caution was warranted. ” It was not a bold statement, rather a reasoned one.   After all, throughout the waning decades of the last millennium and into the present, proponents of cognitive (CT) and cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) had similarly overreached, claiming not only that their methods were superior in effect to all others, but that the mechanisms responsible were well understood.  Both proved false.  As I’ve written extensively on my blog, CT and CBT are no more effective in head to head comparisons with other approaches.  More, studies dating back to 1996 have not found any of the ingredients, touted by experts as critical, necessary to success (1, 2, 3).

That’s why I was excited when researchers Mikeal, Gillaspy, Scoles, and Murphy (2016) published the first dismantling study of the Outcome and Session Rating Scales, showing that using the measures in combination, or just one or the other, resulted in similar outcomes.  Some were dismayed by these findings.  They wrote to me questioning the value of the tools.  For me, however, it proved what I’d said back in 2012, “focusing on the measures misses the point.”  Figure out why their use improves outcomes and we stop conflating features with causes, and are poised to build on what most matters.

On this score, what do the data say?  When it comes to feedback informed treatment, two key factors count:

1. The therapist administering the measures; and
2. The quality of the therapeutic relationship.

As is true of psychotherapy-in-general, the evidence indicates that who uses the scales is more important that what measures are used (1, 2).  Here’s what we know:

• Therapists with an open attitude towards getting feedback reach faster progress with their patients;
• Clinicians able to create an environment in which clients provide critical (e.g., negative) feedback in the form of lower alliance scores early on in care have better outcomes (1, 2); and
• The more time a therapists spend consulting the data generated by routinely administering outcome and alliance measures, the greater their growth in effectiveness over time.

In terms of how FIT helps, two lines of research are noteworthy:

• In a “first of its kind” study, psychologist Heidi Brattland found that the strength of the therapeutic relationship improved more over the course of care when clinicians used the Outcome and Session Rating Scales (ORS & SRS) compared to when they did not.  Critically, such improvements resulted in better outcomes for clients, ultimately accounting for nearly a quarter of the effect of FIT.
• Brattland also found therapists, “significantly differed in the influence of … [FIT] on the alliance, in the influence of the alliance on outcomes, and the residual direct effect of [FIT] … posttreatment” (p. 10).  Consistent with other studies, such findings indicate routine measurement can be used to identify a clinician’s “growth edge” — what, where, and with whom — they might improve their ability to relate to and help the diverse clients met in daily work.  Indeed, the combination of FIT, use of aggregate data to identify personal learning objectives, and subsequent engagement in deliberate practice has, in the only study in history of psychotherapy to date, been shown to improve effectiveness at the individual practitioner level.

“Inch by inch, centimeter by centimeter,” I wrote back in 2012, “the results of [new] studies will advance our understanding and effectiveness.”  I’m hopeful that the discussion in this and my two prior posts (1, 2) will help those interested in improving their results avoid the vicious cycle of hope and despair that frequently accompanies new ideas in our field, embracing the findings and what they can teach us rather than looking for the next best thing.

Until next time,

Scott

Scott D. Miller, Ph.D.
Director, International Center for Clinical Excellence

P.S: The March Intensives are sold out.  Register now for the summer trainings to ensure your spot:

Is it just me or has public discourse gone mad?

A brief perusal of social media largely finds accusation, name calling, and outrage instead of exploration, dialogue and debate.  Not that any of the latter options were ever simple, straightforward, or successful, but somehow, somewhere, taking a stand has replaced extending a hand.

Thus, slightly more than a year ago, I was compared to an ignorant, cult leader by a person — a researcher and proponent of CBT — who’d joined an open discussion about a post of mine on Facebook.  From there, the tone of the exchange only worsened.  Ironically, after lecturing participants about their “ethical duties” and suggesting we needed to educate ourselves, he labelled the group “hostile” and left, saying he was going to “unfriend and block” me.

As I wrote about in my last blogpost, I recently received an email from someone accusing me of “hiding” research studies that failed to support feedback informed treatment (FIT).  Calling it “scandalous,” and saying I “should be ashamed,” they demanded I remove them from my mailing list.  I did, of course, but without responding to the email.

And, therein lies the problem: no dialogue. 

For me, no dialogue means no possibility of growth or change — on my part or other’s.  To be sure, when you are public person, you have to choose to what and whom you respond.  Otherwise, you could spend every waking moment either feeling bad or defending yourself.  Still, I always feel a loss when this happens.  I like talking, am curious about and energized by different points of view.

That’s why when my Dutch colleague, Kai Hjulsted, posted a query about the same study I’d been accused of hiding, I decided to devote several blogposts to the subject of “negative research results.”  Last time, I pointed out that some studies were confounded by the stage of implementation clinicians were in at the time the research was conducted.  Brattland et al.’s results indicate, consistent with findings from the larger implementation literature, it takes between two and four years to begin seeing results.  Why?  Because becoming feedback-informed is not about administering the ORS and SRS — that can be taught in a manner of minutes — rather, FIT is about changing practice and agency culture.

(By the way, today I heard through the grapevine that a published study of a group using FIT that found no effect has, in its fourth and fifth years of implementation, started to experience fairly dramatic improvements in outcome and retention)

As critical as time and ongoing support are to successful use of FIT, these two variables alone are insufficient for making sense of emerging, apparently unsupportive studies.  Near the end of my original post, I noted needing to look at the the type of design used in most research; namely, the randomized controlled trial or RCT.

In the evaluation of health care outcomes , the RCT is widely considered the “gold standard” — the best way for discovering the truth.   Thus, when researcher Annika Davidsen published her carefully designed and executed study showing that adding FIT to the standard treatment of people with eating disorders made no difference in terms of retention or outcome, it was entirely understandable some concluded the approach did not work with this particular population.  After all, that’s exactly what the last line of the abstract said, “Feedback neither increased attendance nor improved outcomes for outpatients in group psychotherapy for eating disorders.”

But what exactly was “tested” in the study?

Read a bit further, and you learn participating “therapists … did not use feedback as intended, that is, to individualize the treatment by adjusting or altering treatment length or actions according to client feedback” (p. 491).  Indeed, when critical feedback was provided by the clients via the measures, the standardization of services took precedence, resulting in therapists routinely responding, “the type of treatment, it’s length and activities, is a non-negotiable.”  From this, can we really conclude FIT was ineffective?

More, unlike studies in medicine, which test pills containing a single active ingredient against others that are similar in every way except they are missing that key ingredient, RCTs of psychotherapy test whole treatment packages (e.g., CBT, IPT, EMDR, etc.).  Understanding this difference is critical when trying to make sense of psychotherapy research.

When what is widely recognized as the first RCT in medicine was published in 1948, practitioners could be certain streptomycin caused the improvement in pulmonary tuberculosis assessed in the study.  By contrast, an investigation showing one psychotherapeutic approach works better than a no treatment control does nothing to establish which, if any of, the ingredients in the method are responsible for change.  Consider cognitive therapy (CT).  Many, many RCTs show the approach works.  On this score, there is no doubt.  People who receive it are much better off than those placed on a waiting list or in control groups.  That said, how cognitive therapy works is another question entirely.  Proponents argue its efficacy results from targeting the patterns of “distorted thinking” causally responsible for maladapative emotions and behaviors.  Unfortunately, RCTs were never designed and are not equipped to test such assumptions.  Other research methods must be used — and when they have been, the results have been surprising to say the least.

In my next post, I will address those findings, both as they apply to popular treatment models such as CT and CBT but also, and more importantly, to FIT.

Stay tuned.  In the meantime, I’m interested in your thoughts thus far.

Until then,

Scott

Scott D. Miller, Ph.D.
Director, International Center for Clinical Excellence

A ship’s captain who successfully sails through a strait at night learns nothing, and adds nothing, to their knowledge of the world.

(Please hang with me.  I promise this post will not be a long, metaphysical rant).

Returning to the example.  As paradoxical as it may strike one at first blush, a captain whose ship founders on the rocks while sailing through the strait both learns and adds to their knowledge.  As philosopher Ernst von Glasersfeld once opined, “The only aspect of that ‘real’ world that actually enters into the realm of experience is its constraints.”

The principle identified by von Glasersfeld applies not only to life lessons, but also to scientific advancement and, of course, feedback informed treatment (FIT).  Indeed, identifying and learning from “constraints” — that is, when things go wrong — is the very purpose of FIT.

It’s why, for example, when a client refuses to complete the outcome and alliance measures, my first impulse is to “lean in” and explore their reasons, rather than instantly set the scales aside.   It’s also why I’m most intrigued by studies which find that FIT fails to improve outcome (1, 2).  In both instances, my curiosity is piqued.  “Finally,” I think, “a chance to learn something …”.   Doing so, cognitive science has long shown, is not as easy or straightforward as simply adjusting our beliefs in light of new facts.  Quite to the contrary.

We are prone to see what we expect, fit the “different” into our current way of viewing the world or ignore it altogether.  One brief example before turning attention to FIT (aka Routine Outcome Monitoring [ROM]).  For most of the history of the field, the failure to engage in and respond to psychological intervention has been attributed to a host of client variables (e.g., degree or type of dysfunction, poor attachment history, IQ, etc.).  Therapists, for their part, have been held accountable for making the correct diagnosis and administering the right treatment.

And yet, despite continuous growth in the size of the DSM, and number of treatment approaches, no improvement in the outcome of psychotherapy has occurred in the last 50 years — a fact I first talked publicly about in 2014 and which über-researchers James Prochaska and John Norcross finally acknowledged in the most recent issue of the American Psychologist.  While some have argued that the field’s flat outcomes indicate the effectiveness therapy has reached a natural limit, an alternate point of view is that we should consider looking beyond the current ways of thinking about what matters most in successful treatment.

On this score, one possibility has been staring the field in the face for decades: the impact of the individual therapist on outcome.  Research has long shown, for example, that who does the treatment contributes 5 to 9 times more to outcome than the type of therapy, psychiatric diagnosis, or client history.  The same body of evidence documents some practitioners are consistently more effective than others.  When researcher Scott Baldwin and colleagues looked into why, they found 97% of the difference was attributable to therapist variability in the alliance.  Said another way, more effective therapists are able to establish a strong working relationship with a broader and more diverse group of clients.  I hope you’re seeing new possibilities for improving effectiveness.  If you’re a regular reader of my blog, you already know my colleagues and I published the only study to date documenting that a focus on therapist development via routine outcome measurement, feedback, and deliberate practice improves both agency and individual practitioner outcomes.

Turning to FIT, in my first post of the New Year, I talked about the strong sense of “anticipointment” I felt when thinking about the future of our field.  A colleague from the Netherlands, Kai Hjulsted, responded, saying he’d been having the same feeling about FIT!  The source, he said, was a study by a Dutch researcher conducted in a crisis intervention setting which, “contrary to expectations,” found, “Patients with psychiatric problems and severe distress seeking emergency psychiatric help did not benefit from direct feedback.”

I was well aware of this study, having served on the researcher’s dissertation committee.  And over the last decade, multiple studies have been published showing little or no benefit from feedback (e.g., 1, 2, 3).

How to make sense of such findings?  Having spoken with numerous practitioners (and even some researchers), I can tell you the tendency is to fit the results into our current way of viewing the world.  So, seen through a traditional medicopsychiatric lens, the inevitable conclusion is FIT does not work with people with certain, specific diagnosis (e.g., severe distress, in crisis, or those with eating disorders).  Such a conclusion makes no sense, however, if the totality of evidence is considered.  Why?  Because the results are decidedly mixed.  Thus, in one study, FIT makes a difference with people in crisis, in another it does not.  With one group of “severely distressed” clients, feedback appears to make matters worse, with another, chances of improvement increase 2.5 times.

What then can we conclude?

An answer begins to emerge as soon as we’re able to get beyond thinking of FIT as just one more in a long list of treatment methods rather than a fundamental, organizing principle of agency and practice culture.  As is hopefully obvious, learning to administer measurement scales takes little time.

Cultural change, by contrast, is a much longer process.  How long?  Norwegian researcher Heidi Brattland and colleagues found it took three years ongoing training and support to successfully implement FIT.  Had they stopped to evaluate, like all other studies to date, after an average of 4 hours of instruction, no impact on outcomes would have been recorded.

While its now clear that time and support are critical to successful implementation, these two variables alone are not sufficient to make sense of emerging, apparently unsupportive studies of FIT.  Addressing such findings requires we look at the type of design used in most research: the randomized controlled trial.   That I’ll do in my next post, in particular addressing two, top notch, well-executed studies many have assumed show FIT is not effective in psychological care for people with eating disorders and severe distress.

And so, as I asked at the outset, please “hang with me.”

Until next time,

Scott

Scott D. Miller, Ph.D.
Director, International Center for Clinical Excellence

As a mental health professional, how are you approaching the New Year?  Are you filled with hope for our field?  Suffering a twinge (or more) of despair?  Maybe you’re in reflective mood, longing for the ‘good ole days’?  Or is the difference between December 31st and January 1st just like any other twenty four hour period?

While catching up on reading over the Holidays, I came across a word that captured my experience.  I’d never seen it before.  Anticipointment.  Online sources define it as, “The state of mind resulting from anticipating and then being disappointed when expectations are not met.”  Truth is, I recognize now I’ve often experienced this, but mistaken it for nostalgia. I t’s not.

So what about you?  On one hand, we do have good reason to be hopeful.  After all, decades of evidence provide overwhelming proof of the effectiveness of psychotherapy.  On the other hand, the same research shows our outcomes have not improved in more than 40 years.  Returning to the positive side, researchers have now identified two specific practices — routine outcome monitoring and deliberate practice — that enable clinicians to accomplish something never before recorded in history the history of the field; namely, steadily improve their effectiveness from year to year.  On the negative side, the field –researchers, clinicians, payers, and policy makers alike — continues to be strongly attracted to treatment models, I’d say fatally so.  Crossing the term, “cognitive behavioral therapy” (CBT) with “randomized controlled trial” (RCT) on Google Scholar results in 1,930,000 hits!  In case you glossed over the figure, that’s one million, nine hundred thirty thousand — and that’s just one method out of hundreds.  By contrast, a similar search of “tetanus vaccine,” produces slightly more than 18,000 results.  I ask, does our field really need to spend precious resources on another study of CBT?  It’s discouraging.  More broadly, given the clear and overwhelming evidence of equivalence between treatment methods for any DSM diagnosis that’s been tested — and yes, that includes so-called trauma-specific approaches — do we need any more RCT’s pitting one protocol against another?  Wouldn’t time be better spent studying how practitioners can improve their ability to attune and respond to their clients?  After all, these two transtheoretical skills, researchers Stiles and Horvath, point out, are why “certain therapists are more effective than others” (p. 71)

For me, I approach the New Year with a strong sense of anticipointment.  I want to be hopeful, believe there are good empirical reasons to do so.  At the same time, I fear little will change.  Turns out, some of our field’s beliefs and practices refuse to die.

What can we do to escape these “walking dead?”

A quick Google search of “Surviving the Zombie Apocalypse” turns up in three clear themes.  First, make sure you are not a zombie.  “The main epidemiological risk of zombies,” says Wikipedia, “is that their population just keeps increasing [as] generations of humans merely ‘surviving’ … feed” them.  In the case of psychotherapy, I’ve come to believe practitioners often know certain popular ideas and practices are dead, but go along with them anyway.  We must say, “no” or risk infecting the next generation.

The second suggestion makes the first possible: don’t go it alone.  In short, you have a better chance of surviving in a group that shares your objectives.  If your professional goals as a therapist include improving your results, the near 10,000 members of the International Center for Clinical Excellence might be your people.  It’s free.

Third, and finally, focus on the basics.  In the case of real zombies, that means securing water, shelter, and food over other, possibly more stimulating interests.  Similarly, for therapists, chasing the “new and promising” must give way to personal work; in particular, deepening core skills associated with effective clinical practice.  If becoming a more effective version of you is of interest, check out an article on the subject published this week.  My colleague Brooke Mathewes and I provide concrete guidance for finding your performance edge and then developing, executing, and evaluating a highly individualized plan for improvement.  Normally behind a “paywall,” the article is currently available for free thanks to the generosity of the journal editors.

As always, I’m interested in your thoughts and reflections.  Please post them below!

Until next time,

Scott

Scott D. Miller, Ph.D.
Director, International Center for Clinical Excellence

“I heard Scott Miller say it,” the man sitting next to me said.

“Really?” I responded, somewhat incredulous.  After all, I didn’t recall ever saying such a thing.  More to the point, it’s just not something I would say.  Its wrong.  Then again, it was clear he didn’t know that I was Scott Miller.  Not wanting to disrupt the presenter before me at the conference, I’d quietly snuck into the room, dressed in my “civies,” shortly after the meeting had started.

“Yep,” he replied, his voice full of certainty, “as I understand it, he says it all the time.”  Making “air” quote marks with his fingers, “If the client is not changing within three visits, you should terminate the treatment.”

You should have seen the look on his face when later our eyes met as I took to the stage to do my presentation.

On many occasions over the years, I’ve heard people quote me saying things I’ve never said.  Here’s a common one:

“Scott Miller says all you need for successful treatment is a good therapeutic relationship.”

Just so you know, I’ve never said this.  Ever. And yet, once, after I corrected a nationally known practitioner in front of a large audience, he nonetheless repeated it in his newsletter.  Here’s what I have said and continue to say:

• All treatment models work equally well.  All.
• Of all the factors affecting outcome, the specific approach used has the smallest impact.  By comparison, the relationship between client and therapist contributes eight to nine times more. 

Another:

“Scott Miller says therapists help 80% of their clients.”

Once again, I’ve never said this.  In this instance, the misquote is more understandable.  Here’s what I do say at almost every workshop:

• Decades of research and hundreds of study document psychotherapy works.
• The effectiveness of psychotherapy has remained fairly stable over the years.
• In most studies, the average treated client is better off than 80% of the untreated comparison sample.

I’m certain it’s the last of these statements that causes problems.  Presented, as it, is in “researchspeak,” it’s easy to misunderstand.  Read it again and you’ll see it does not mean we help 80% of our clients.  Rather, its about the advantage therapy offers relative to receiving no treatment at all.  By contrast, the percentage we help — as I’ve blogged about on numerous occasions — is actually around 50%.

Now, in the interest of fairness, let me mention something I often say but have never heard misquoted.  At nearly of all my workshops, I joke, “The ORS and SRS may not be the best scales ever developed … but they are free!”  The latter part of that statement is absolutely true.  Clinicians wishing to solicit feedback from clients about their progress and the quality of the therapeutic relationship simply need to register for a free paper and pencil license.  That said, recent research out of the University of Nottingham is giving me pause about the other half.

Just last week, I interviewed Professor Sam Malins who, together with a team of others, has been studying the use of the scales in real world clinical settings for a number of years.  In addition to replicating a number of important findings (e.g., the longer you use the ORS and SRS, the more impact they have on retention and effectiveness; spending time gathering information for diagnosis and treatment planning results in poorer outcomes, the scales can be used to identify skill development opportunities), he also found the Outcome Rating Scale predicted …  oh, just watch the video yourself.  That way, I won’t be misquoted!

Until next time,

Scott

Scott D. Miller, Ph.D.
Director, International Center for Clinical Excellence

Remember these?

Did you ever own or try one?

Remember Beanie Babies?  According to one news story, interest was such, “People neglected other areas of their lives to spend all day trading, and some even invested their children’s college funds in toys that they believed would bring an astronomical return on investment.”

And how about advertising executive Gary Dahl’s product?  You remember him, right?  In the 1970’s, he became an overnight millionaire selling rocks marketed as pets.  Rocks!  Waterbeds, Crocs, cause-branded plastic wristbands, oxygen bars, Pogs, Silly Bandz, and the Macarena — the list is as endless as our attention span is short.

If you’ve been in practice for a while, you know the field of mental health is not immune to fad and fashion.  Like past diet crazes, the drugs, diagnoses, and treatment methods that capture professional interest and then quickly disappear can be hard to remember.  Thus, in the 1980’s it was Xanax, multiple personality disorder, and satanic cult abuse.  The 1990’s brought us the “decade of the brain,” borderline personality disorder, and a flood of Prozac and cognitive-behavior therapy knockoffs.  More recently, mindfulness, energy meridians, and trauma have become the objets de grand intérêt.

One more trend is Feedback-Informed Treatment (FIT).  Known also as Routine Outcome Monitoring, Patient Focused Research, and Measurement-based care, it involves using scales to solicit feedback from clients regarding their experience in treatment and using the resulting information in real time to improve quality and outcome.  The weight of the scientific evidence is such that professional and regulatory bodies in the U.S. and abroad have already deemed ROM a “standard” of care in the delivery of psychological services and clinical supervision (American Psychological Association Presidential Task Force on Evidence-based Practice, 2006; Association of State and Provincial Psychology Boards, 2019; Joint Commission, 2018; Tasca et al., 2019).

But is it just another fad?

Data from two recent surveys suggest FIT is moving beyond the “innovation” to the “mass adoption” phase among mental health providers and treatment agencies.  The study conducted by Myoutcomes® targeted members of Facebook-related psychotherapy interest groups and other sources, finding fairly dramatic growth in: (1) awareness of the empirical support for using measures to assess progress and the quality of the therapeutic relationship; and (2) experience with standardized measurement tools in psychotherapy.

Whether such results indicate FIT will stick around long enough to be the “game changer” remains to be seen.  What is known for sure is that, while important, awareness of, experience with, and research support for the process are insufficient to sustain the interest.  Research shows, for instance, successful implementation of FIT takes significant time, planning, and support, without which between 70 and 95% of efforts fail.  Why?  Because working feedback-informed is about changing culture, not using measurement scales in treatment.  Success requires that all members of management — from administration to clinical supervisors — understand and are actively involved in implementation.  Indeed, when practitioners rather than a team led by a manager are held accountable, the likelihood of FIT being a game changer plummets (80% versus 14 %).

Bottom line?  PLEASE don’t download the ORS and SRS and begin experimenting — testing it out to see “if it works.”  As I blogged about last week, the likelihood of failure is simply too high.   Instead, bring your team to our upcoming Spring intensives in Chicago.  You’ll not only “rub shoulders” with colleagues from around the world and our international faculty, but also leave with a thorough grounding in FIT, as well as skills for transforming the culture in which you work.

Until next time,

Scott

Director, International Center for Clinical Excellence

A couple of weeks ago I received an email from the leader of a group asking me to send them copies of the ORS and SRS. “We are to start using these straight away,” the person wrote.

I replied, of course, providing a link to my website where the scales could be downloaded along with a brief note, highlighting the Feedback Informed Treatment (FIT) Manuals and the upcoming March Intensives in Chicago.  “Both are great resources,” I said, “for learning how to use the measures to improve the quality and outcome of behavioral health services.”

I received a quick and polite response, thanking me for the links but going on to say, “I’ve seen the scales. They are really very simple and self-explanatory so I don’t think we really need much in the way of training or support materials.”

I’d like to say I was surprised. After all, what medical professional would say something similar?  Say, about a stethoscope?  To wit, “No thanks, seems pretty simple, stick these thingies in my ears, and the other end on the patient’s chest and listen…”.

But I was not — surprised, that is. Why?  Of the several hundred downloads of the measures from my website per week, and the more than 200,000 over the last decade, very few practitioners have sought or received any training.  Indeed, most have never even read the FIT manuals!

The impact on those who are initially enthusiastic about seeking formal feedback from their clients is as predictable as it is sad: they quickly give up.  How do I know, you ask?  Every week, as I’m out and about, training and consulting, I run into practitioners who say:

“Yeah, I heard of FIT, I even tried the scales…but they didn’t work…”

“I tried the ORS and SRS scales for a while, but I didn’t get any clinically useful information from them…”

“My clients weren’t honest … so I stopped using them”

And so I ask, what does it take to help people get the information and training they need to succeed?  The question is far from trivial or self-serving.  The measures are free to download and the latest research shows using them more than doubles the chances of helping clients experience meaningful change.  The only caveat is that, despite their simplicity, learning to employ the tools effectively takes time and support.  How do I know that?  Research, of course!

If you have thoughts about what I can do to address this problem, please let me know. In the meantime, in an effort to help, here are several offers:

1. For the time being, get the FIT Treatment and Training Manuals for 50% off;

2. Register for the combined FIT Advanced and Supervision Intensive now using the code FIT-Promo at checkout and get an additional discount off the early bird rate;

3. Sign up for the cutting-edge FIT e-learning program — where you can learn at your own pace from the comfort of your home — and receive the new, deliberate practice module, for free (if interested, email me for details about this offer).

Yes, please feel free to share these links and codes with your colleagues.  And, once more, if you have additional suggestions, I’m interested in hearing them.  Please post a comment below.

That’s it for now.

All the best for the Holidays,

Scott

Scott D. Miller, Ph.D.
Director, International Center for Clinical Excellence

Mr. Gomm was my sixth grade teacher.  Tall and angular, with a booming voice and stern demeanor, he remains a forbidding figure from my childhood.

I’ll never forget the day he slammed his open hand on my desk, bellowing “That, Mr. Miller, is an assumption!”  Turning abruptly, he walked to the chalkboard, and began writing, one capital letter at a time: A, S, S, U, M, E.

“And do you know what happens when we assume, Mr. Miller?” he asked.

“Speak up!” I remember him commanding.  But I just sat there, like a deer in the headlights.

I’m sure you know what happened next.  Returning to the board, he quickly drew slash marks between the S and U, and U and M:  ASS/U/ME.

For emphasis, he then tapped each section loudly with his chalk as he spoke, “Let me spell it out for you, Mr. Miller.  To assume is to make an ass out of you and me!”

It’s a moment I recall with absolute clarity.  Only later — much later —  did I come to realize I’d not understood the point he’d been trying to make at the time.  Indeed, at recess, all anyone could talk about was that Mr. Gomm said the word “ass” out loud in class.  Soon, we were applying our new knowledge to anything anyone did on the playground that we didn’t like: butting in line, missing a critical shot in kick ball, or any of the other possible social faux pas among marginally pubescent adolescents.

“You just made an ass out of you and me!” we repeated with glee at the slightest provocation.

Beyond the obvious irony involved, it turns out tr. Gomm was only half right.  Yes, assuming — supposing without proof — is fraught with risk.  That said, presuming — taking something for granted based on probability — is, as the incident so clearly demonstrates, just as problematic.  In his mind, he’d made a sensible presumption: we would get “it.”  After all, he knew us.  We were his students.  We made the same mistake.  Based on our experience of him, we figured he was teaching us another valuable lesson, and then assumed we’d understood what he’d said.

Prior to last week, I’d not thought of Mr. Gomm for ages.  I was was reminded of him after puzzling over a slew of questions about feedback-informed treatment (FIT) posted on our online discussion forums at the International Center for Clinical Excellence.  On the surface, all appeared to be straightforward requests for information, requiring nothing more than a simple and direct response.  The trouble was that any answer one might give ended up confirming assumptions contained in the queries that were fundamentally untrue or inaccurate.

While the particulars varied, a theme shared by many of the posts was whether one could or should trust scores on the Outcome and Session Rating Scales (ORS & SRS) with certain clients — in particular, people who were shy, mandated into treatment, cognitively compromised, or emotionally disturbed.

To be sure, it’s not the first time I’d encountered such concerns.  Indeed, they frequently come up at the beginning of introductory workshops on FIT:

“Court ordered clients won’t be truthful.”

“The feedback from client’s with (borderline personality disorder, bipolar, psychosis) won’t be reliable or valid.”

“People from this (age group, culture) are not (accustomed to or incapable of) providing feedback to professionals.”

When I have several hours to teach, interact, and illustrate, I usually ask people to wait with such observations, promising an answer will emerge in time.  In the truncated, two-dimensional space of most social media interactions, however, I’ve found a similar evolution of understanding much more challenging.  Hence this post.

Of course, in the best of all worlds, people would get more training.  Answers are available. Given the simplicity of the scales — you can learn to administer and score the ORS and SRS in less than a minute — the temptation to dive in, presuming our existing clinical knowledge and experience applies to their use, is simply too great for most to resist.  Consider this: several hundred thousand practitioners have download the measures from my website in just the last couple of years!  Of these, fewer than 2 or 3% have had any training!  In the end, the unquestioned assumptions brought to the process cause most to get stuck and eventually give up.

So, what about the concerns noted above?

All make perfect sense IF the ORS and SRS are thought of as assessments, the helpfulness of which depend on the accuracy of the data collected.  By contrast, were the measures primarily seen as tools to help engage clients, an entirely different set of assumptions becomes possible.  For example, rather than interpreting high ORS scores of a court-ordered client as evidence of dishonesty or denial that must be confronted or overcome, they could be treated as an opportunity to connect with, explore, and understand their experience and world view.

In practical terms that means taking client scores at face value.  Leaving traditional assumptions aside, the clinician would first acknowledge and then respond logically to what is reported on the scale.  “I see from your responses, you are doing quite well,” continuing, “So, why did you decide to come see me today?”  Should the client say, as most readily do, they were sent by the courts (or employer, parents, or partner), the clinician responds by asking them to complete the measure as if they were the person who sent them.  After all, from their perspective, that’s why they are there!  The discussion can then turn to closing the gap between the client’s and referral source’s scores, beginning, for instance, with asking, “What have they missed about you that, once recognized, will lead them to score you higher?”  Along the way, the result of this line of inquiry is greater participation of the client in treatment — the factor long ago established as the number one process-related predictor of outcome (see Orlinsky, Grawe, & Parks, 1994).

And what about the other questions?

As already stated, answers are available — ones that leave most thinking, “Duh, why didn’t I think of that?”  To be blunt, we can’t so long as we are unaware we are thinking something else!  That’s where a more in-depth training in FIT can prove helpful.  Join colleagues from around the world and our international faculty this coming Spring in Chicago for the three-day, Advanced FIT Intensive.  We’ll not only challenge your thinking, we’ll provide a thorough grounding in the principles and skills of using feedback to inform and improve the quality of mental health and substance abuse services with a broad and diverse clinical population — training which, research shows, improves therapist effectiveness.  Registration is limited to 40 participants.  Click either of the icons below for more information.

Until next time,

Scott

Scott D. Miller, Ph.D.
Director, International Center for Clinical Excellence

Imagine a power so great that those who possess it are able to heal the sick, and those without it, cause death. By definition, it would qualify as a superpower — and, in fact, one Marvel comic character has claimed this one for their own.

More than seven dozen studies have investigated the impact of this “power” on the outcome of psychotherapy, finding that it contributes nine times more to success than whatever treatment method is employed (1 [see table, p. 258]).  And now, a population-based study out of the UK has shown that diabetic patients whose physicians wield this special power have a lower risk of cardiovascular events and mortality.

Strangely, while the evidence shows this ability can be greatly enhanced with proper instruction (1), little time is spent in graduate or medical schools helping students acquire or refine it.  The trend continues after formal training.  For example, search the web for continuing education on the subject and the offerings are few and far between.  And finally, if you think clinical experience contributes to the development of the skill, think again.  Despite widespread belief to the contrary, time is not a good teacher, with studies showing no correlation between the strength of the power and the number of years a practitioner has been in the field.

So, what exactly is the “it” we are talking about?

Notice your reaction when I tell you…

EMPATHY

Skeptical?  Surprised?  Bemused?  Knew it all along?

Whatever your response, the documented power of empathy to heal (or harm) makes clear more attention to the skill is warranted in our professional development efforts.  What steps can clinicians take in this regard?  A recent meta-analysis containing every study on the subject to date concludes, since “clients’ reports of therapist empathy best predict eventual treatment outcome, … regularly assessing … the client’s experience of empathy, instead of trying to intuit whether therapist behavior is empathic or not” is key.

Regularly assessing the client’s experience instead of trying to intuit.

Two decades ago, my colleagues and I developed a brief tool to do just that.  Known as the Session Rating Scale, or SRS, it’s been vetted in numerous clinical trials and shown to be a valid and reliable way for clinicians to solicit feedback from clients regarding the quality of the therapeutic relationship (including empathy).

If you don’t already have a copy, you can get yours free by clicking here.  Several web-based systems exist for administering and interpreting the data you gather, all of which offer free trials.  More, a brand new book, and series of “how-to” manuals are available which provide step-by-step directions for using the scale in diverse settings and populations.  Finally, registration for two training workshops is now open where you can get hands on training on using the measure to improve your therapeutic effectiveness.  Each year, these events fill up months advance.  Click here for more information.

That’s it for now!

Until next time,

Scott

Scott D. Miller, Ph.D.
Director, International Center for Clinical Excellence

P.S.: The photo at the outset of this post displays two cards from the Thoth Tarot: (1) The Lovers; and (2) Death.  The first is about the possibilities inherent in uniting through love and acceptance.  The second, about transformation.  Sounds like psychotherapy, eh?

Plug “psychotherapy” into the Amazon search engine and you get 60,000 hits for books, manuals, worksheets, and videos.  Clearly, when it comes to “how to do it,” our field is rich with resources.

However, if you enter the words, “failure in psychotherapy” the number drops to 75, less than 20 of which are actually on topic.

TWENTY.

How to interpret such results when research shows 50% of people who enter treatment fail to benefit in any meaningful way?  The numbers being what they are, it’s hard to come to any other conclusion than we avoid the subject.

Contrast our field’s relative indifference with the approach of the aviation industry.  Where we avoid the subject, they embrace it, using each instance to learn and improve.  The result?  The safety of air travel has improved dramatically, with fatalities dropping from around 40 per million departures in the late 50’s and early 60’s, to near zero in recent years.   By contrast, during the same span of time, retention and outcome rates in psychotherapy have not improved a single percentage point.

Thankfully, recent developments are challenging the status quo, putting failure center stage in a renewed effort to facilitate professional development.  One of these is a new and deeply moving podcast series, “Very Bad Therapy,” run by two graduate students, Ben Fineman and Carrie Wiita.  Each installment features a different client sharing a, “You would not believe what happened with my therapist” story.

Ben and Carrie are skillful and entertaining interviewers, teasing out nuances and helping reveal the rich learnings hidden in the worst moments of our work as therapists.  Consider this, already they’ve published more episodes than there are books on the subject at Amazon!

Check it out.  And while you’re there, listen to Episode #18, their most recent.  Once again, the subject is failure and professional growth.  This time, the person being interviewed is me!

Until next time,

Scott

Director, International Center for Clinical Excellence

P.S.: Registration for the Spring intensives on Feedback Informed Treatment (FIT) is open! Each year, we sell out months in advance.  Click here for more information or to reserve your spot.

Take a good look at the photo to the left.

Do you know this person?

His name is Myron L. Fox, M.D., a graduate of the Albert Einstein School of Medicine.

Still doesn’t ring a bell?

At one point, he was the one of the highest rated presenters on the continuing education circuit for physicians, psychologists, social workers, and educators.  He delivered hour long lectures followed by 30 minutes of Q & A at major universities.  Among other topics, he spoke about the biochemistry of memory.  Those in attendance routinely described his lectures as “outstanding,” “stimulating,” “thought provoking,” and “clear and well organized.”

Only one wrinkle.  Dr. Fox was not a physician.  He wasn’t a doctor of any kind.  Neither was his name Myron Fox.  In fact, he really knew nothing about the subjects on which he spoke.  Rather, the man in the photo was a paid actor coached by a group of experimenters to present a lecture full of “double-talk, neologisms, non sequiturs, and contradictory statements” in one of two ways: straightforward or entertaining.

No surprise, in the first instance, the participants learned less and performed more poorly on a subsequent test than those who attended a similar lecture delivered by a real scientist.   However, when “Dr. Fox” adopted a lively demeanor, used humor, and displayed warmth toward and interest in his audience, any correlation between the content covered and audience ratings of the experience disappeared.   Indeed, so potent was his style, it masked a completely “meaningless, jargon-filled, and confused presentation” (Merritt, 2008).

The study has been replicated many times with similar results.   Even when participants are warned ahead of time to be on guard, the “Dr. Fox Effect” — as it has come to be known — remains in force.  Over the years, the findings have been cited as evidence against using speaker and student ratings to evaluate teachers and lecturers.  By contrast, I’ve always thought the study showed how important engagement was to effective teaching.  After all, in all versions of the study, participants exposed to entertaining versions of lectures scored more highly on subsequent knowledge tests than those hearing material presented in a “straightforward” manner.

It’s why the International Center for Clinical Excellence is offering the “Training of Trainers” course this summer.   Knowing that WHO you present is just as critical as WHAT, this three-day, evidence-based, bootcamp style workshop is specifically designed to help you become a better presenter/trainer, one that builds on your style and persona.   Click here for more information or to register.

All the best,

Scott

Scott D. Miller, Ph.D.
Director, International Center for Clinical Excellence
iccexcellence.com

My family and I had a frightening experience this past Memorial Day.  While driving through Indiana on the way home to Chicago, our mobile phones began to alert.  You know the sound — part cicada, part microphone feedback, but louder.  

“Tornado warning in this area.”

Not a watch, mind you, a warning.  The difference is critical.  A watch means conditions are favorable for a tornado.  A warning means, IT’S HERE!

Looking ahead, we could see the dark, fast moving clouds.  No rotation, but menacing nonetheless.  That’s when our phones screeched the warning again.

“Take shelter now.  Check local media.”

Turning on the radio, we listened to the weather broadcast, distorted by the now abundant flashes of lightening.  We quickly learned we were heading directly into the affected area.

“What do we do?” I muttered to myself.   Cars and trucks were already pulling to the side, taking up positions under overpasses.  A few had become stuck while attempting to turn around in the already flooded ditch separating the two directions.

“Check Google maps to see where we can get off,” I barked.  I knew from prior experience that sheltering under overpasses was a bad idea.   We had to get off or risk having the Tornado hit us head on.  Problem was we were on the tollway where exits are few and far between.

“Two miles to the next exit,” my son soon replied.

That’s when we first saw it.  The clouds rotating overhead, a conical shape beginning to push downward.

Once more, our phones alerted: Take shelter now.  With my adrenaline pumping, and no other way to go but forward, I pushed on the accelerator.

Thankfully, we made it to the exit, racing northward up a country road at 85 miles-an-hour to escape the storm.  Ten or twelve minutes later, we spied a small gas station and pulled into the lot.  It was pouring rain, alternating with hail.  The sense of relief was palpable nonetheless.

Once the danger had passed, we resumed our journey.  The cabin of the car now quiet, I began running the experience over and over in my mind.  Something about it really bugged me, in particular the warnings and advice we’d received via our mobile phones and from the media.  It was clear, to be sure.  At the same time, it was absolutely unhelpful.  Yes, we were grateful for the warning.  And, of course, it was a good idea to seek shelter.  But where and how?  Absent more concrete direction, the result was people either panicked (like us) or made poor, even dangerous choices (e.g., sheltering under overpasses instead of laying in a ditch).

We have a similar problem in the field of mental health.  Google “advice and psychotherapy” and you get roughly 6 million hits many, if not most, of which are negative.  “The best advice a therapist could get,” one prominent site counsels, is “Stop giving advice.”  Another warns, telling people how to solve their problems, is “counterproductive” and potentially unethical.  A variety of reasons are given — largely having to do with the assumed nature of therapy (i.e., helping people help themselves) or client resistance to such help.

But do clients agree with such sentiments?  Until recently, no one had bothered to ask.  Now, a newly published study provides some provocative answers.  Researchers Cooper, Norcross, Raymond-Barker, and Hogan surveyed therapists and clients about their preferences, finding large and robust differences between the two groups.  Therapists, on average, preferred more emotional intensity and less directiveness.  Their clients?  The reverse!   The researcher’s advise to practitioners?  One page one of the peer reviewed article: Stop projecting your own desires onto the people you treat.

“Easier said than done” says lead author, Professor Mick Cooper.  I had the chance to speak with him about the study.  The interview provides direction for putting these importance findings into practice.

Until next time,

Scott

Scott D. Miller, Ph.D.
Director, International Center for Clinical Excellence

It was a curious finding.  One we stumbled on quite by accident.  Highly effective therapists were more likely to contact their clients between visits than their more average peers.  We wondered whether such behavior might account, at least in part, for their superior retention rates and outcomes?

Turns out, our serendipitous finding fit nicely with results from the field of behavioral economics documenting how very simple actions can have a dramatic impact on people’s behavior.   In one well known example, a study showed the way food is displayed in school cafeterias –it’s location and prominence–significantly impacts whether students make healthy or unhealthy eating choices.  Similar results have been recorded in other areas, such as saving for retirement, choosing the best health insurance plan, deciding whether to exercise or make positive lifestyle changes.

In all cases, the “nudge” –as researchers call such interventions — are simple, inexpensive, and require little time and effort to deliver.  A recent report in The Chronicle of Higher Education found, for example, a single email expressing compassion and support to students who had failed their first semester exam led to better classroom performance and less school drop out.  And since our original discovery, psychotherapy researchers have confirmed what highly effective practitioners have known all along.  The study by Flükiger, Del Re, Wampold, Znoj, Caspar, and Jörg found that clients who were sent a brief letter and had one follow up call between visits experienced significant and lasting improvements in the quality of the therapeutic relationship over the course of care.

Clearly, a little can go a long way.  But where to start?

It would be wrong to conclude that we should start phoning (or sending emails) to all of our clients between visits.  The research cited above and findings from our interviews with highly effective therapists show, to be effective, therapeutic nudges must interrupt “business-as-usual.”  The default choice for most practitioners is not to engage in extratherapeutic contact with clients.  We are busy enough and reaching out crosses a boundary.  Additionally, and importantly, any such efforts need to show our interest in the client while simultaneously leaving them free not to comply.  Simply put, nudges can not be shoves.  

Evidence shows using simple measurement scales on an ongoing basis to  assess progress and the quality of the therapeutic relationship can augment our ability to identify and time these types of interventions.  Indeed, as I posted last week, clients whose therapists do so are less likely to dropout and 2.5 times more like to experience benefit from treatment.   Actually, 10’s of thousands of clinicians around the world are using the tools I created nearly 20 years ago to inform their work.  If you aren’t, click here to download them for free.

In the meantime, if you are looking for new and creative ways to nudge your therapeutic effectiveness upwards, join me in Chicago for one or more of our Summer workshops:

• The two-day “FIT Implementation intensive” is the only evidence-based workshop in the U.S. designed to help you implement feedback informed treatment in your agency or healthcare system.
• The three-day “Training of Trainers” will enhance your presentation and training skills.  It’s a blast, the most fun workshop we do.
• Last but not least, the two-day “Deliberate Practice” workshop will, as the name implies, help you use deliberate practice to improve your clinical effectiveness.  We help you identify the targets and develop a plan.

All the best,

Scott

Scott D. Miller, Ph.D.
Director, International Center for Clinical Excellence

Several weeks ago, the American Psychological Association (APA) released its latest in a series of practice guidelines for psychologists – this time for “Psychological Practice with Boys and Men.”  Prior years had seen guidelines focused on ethnicity, older adults, girls and women, LGBT, and “transgender and gender-non-conforming” persons.

Curiously, despite claiming to be based on 40 years of research, and the product of 12 years of intensive study, the latest release attracted little attention.  More, the responses that have appeared in print and other media have largely been negative (1, 2, 3, 4, 5). 

What happened?

At first blush, the development and dissemination practice guidelines for psychologists would seem a failsafe proposition.  What possibly could go wrong with providing evidence-based information for improving clinical work?  And yet, time and again, guidelines released by APA end up not just attracting criticism, but deep concern.   Already, for example, a Title IX complaint has been filed against the new guidelines at Harvard.

Consider others released in late 2017 for the treatment of trauma.  Coming in at just over 700 pages ensured few, if any, actual working professionals would read the complete document and supportive appendices.  Beyond length, the way the information was presented–especially the lack of hypertext for cross referencing of the studies cited–seriously compromised any straightforward effort to review and verify evidentiary claims.  Nevertheless, digging into the details revealed a serious problem:  a discontinuity between the evidence reviewed and the conclusions reached.  For example, despite “strongly recommending” certain approaches over others, none that topped the list had actually been shown by research to be more effective than any other.

Guidelines are far from benign.  They are meant to shape practice, establishing a “standard of care” — one that will be used, as the name implies to guide training and treatment.  As such, the stakes are high, potentially life altering for both practitioners and those they serve.

And so, on reading the latest release from the APA, we wonder about the consequences for men and boys.  Even a superficial reading leaves little to recommend “being male.”  Gone are any references to the historical or current contributions of men — to their families, communities, marginalized peoples, culture, or civilization.  In their place, are a host of sweeping generalizations often wrapped in copious amounts of political, progressive jargon on a wide variety of subjects, many of which are the focus of research and debate by serious scientists (e.g., the connection between media violence and male aggression, socialization as a primary cause of gender and behavior, the existence of a singular versus multiple masculine ideal, etc.).

Cutting to the chase, when viewed in this way, is it any wonder really, that many men – as the document accurately points out – “do not seek help from mental health professionals when they need it?” (p. 1).

And lest there be any doubt, men as a group, are in need help.  

You’ve likely read the statistics, seen examples in your practice, perhaps in the life of your family or friends.   It starts young, with boys accounting for 90% of discipline problems in schools, and continues to the end of life, with women living 5 to 10 years longer on average.  The “in between” years are not any better, with men significantly more likely to be incarcerated, addicted to drugs, drop and fail out of school, and end their lives by suicide.

To be clear, the document is not overarchingly negative.  At the same time, if our goal, as a profession, is to reduce stigma — which previous, and even the present, guidelines do for other groups and “non-traditional” males — then the latest release risks perpetuating stereotypes and prejudices of “traditional” men and the people in their orbit.

Sticking to the science of helping, instead of conforming to popular standards of public discourse, would have lead to a very different document – one containing a more nuanced and appreciative understanding of the boys and men who are reluctant to seek our care.  In the fractious times in which we find ourselves, perhaps it’s time for guidelines on how to live and work together, as individuals and as a species.

As always, interested in your thoughts,

Scott & David

Scott D. Miller, Ph.D. & David Prescott, LICSW
International Center for Clinical Excellence

P.S.: Registration for our Summer Intensives on Implementing Feedback Informed Treatment and Deliberate Practice is now open — two clinical practices research shows improves retention and outcome in behavioral health care.   For more information, click here.

I’m neither a great psychotherapist or surfer.  I love doing both, however.

Turns out, the two share a fundamental similarity critical to successful execution; in a word, responsiveness.

Scott

Scott D. Miller, Ph.D.
Director, International Center for Clinical Excellence

P.S: Registration is open for the FIT Summer Intensive Trainings.  Click on the icons below for more information or to register.

Nearly two decades have passed since I met Saul Rosenzweig at his home in St. Louis, Missouri.  He was well into his nineties and still working every day.  Truth is, I was surprised to learn he was still alive!

In 1936, he’d penned an article –three and a half pages in total– that became one of the most often cited in psychotherapy research.  He was only 29 years of age at the time.

Then, as now, Rosenzweig’s central premise is controversial: all psychotherapy approaches, regardless of their specific components, produce equivalent outcomes.

Although he didn’t coin the phrase, his observation has since been referred to as, “The Dodo Verdict.”  That’s because he began the article quoting a line uttered by the Dodo from Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland, “Everyone has won, and all must have prizes.”

Over the last eight decades, many have claimed to “beat the dodo verdict” — to have developed an approach more effective than others.   You know them by acronym: CBT, EMDR, ACT, CRT, MI, TFT, SFBT, CDOI, and so on.   Initial research is always promising.  Nevertheless, as I’ve detailed in many blogs over the years, later studies invariably find the “new and improved” is no more effective than the “tried and true” — whatever the accepted standard might be at that moment (1, 2, 3, 4).

The field’s focus on methods is understandable.  The assumption is psychotherapy works like medicine.  To be effective, an approach must contain ingredients specifically remedial to the disorder being treated.  No one questions whether antibiotics are better than aspirin for strep throat.  Why?  Because the former contains an ingredient that kills the bacteria responsible for the infection.  In a similar way, CBT  is widely believed to work because its methods target the root cause of depression, dysfunctional thoughts.

So critical are the techniques of the various psychotherapy approaches believed to be, developers create protocols and manuals for insuring they are delivered correctly.  Professional, regulatory, and funding bodies (e.g., American Psychological Association, National Institute for Health and Care Excellence [NICE], National Institute of Mental Health) have embraced and, in some instances, mandated their use.

But what do the data say?

In 2005, my colleagues and I reviewed the available evidence and concluded, “Although training in manualized psychotherapies does enhance therapist learning of and technical competence in a given approach, there is no relationship between such manuals and outcome.”

And now, a new, updated study.  Briefly, researchers Truijens, Zühlke‐van Hulzen, and Vanheule, conducted a systematic review of the literature — six studies directly comparing manualized and nonmanualized psychotherapy, and nine meta-analyses.  Their conclusion?  “Manualized treatment is not empirically supported … [and] should not be promoted as being superior to nonmanualized psychotherapy.”  It’s Dodo come back life.

What can a mental health professional do to improve their effectiveness?

Here again, the data point the way to finally “beating the Dodo.”  It involves a change of focus.  Instead of learning the latest treatment approach, work on becoming a more effective version of you.  The process is known as deliberate practice.  It begins by creating a detailed map of your clinical performance; specifically, measuring your results, and then using the information to identify opportunities for professional growth.Research to date documents gradual growth in effectiveness consistent with performance improvements obtained by elite athletes.

Want to learn more?  Click here for a free article–actually, the chapter on the subject from our latest book, The Cycle of Excellence.   Still interested?  Watch the recent interview I did on the subject with YouTube blogger, Chris Dorsano.

That’s it for now.  Best for the Holidays,

Scott

Scott D. Miller, Ph.D.
Director, International Center for Clinical Excellence