You are seeing this message because your Web browser does not support basic Web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.


ABOUT JAMA
Advanced Search

Welcome   | My Account | E-mail Alerts | Access Rights | Sign In


  Vol. 301 No. 9, March 4, 2009 TABLE OF CONTENTS
  JAMA
  •  Online Features
  Letters
 This Article
 •Full text
 •PDF
 •Send to a friend
 • Save in My Folder
 •Save to citation manager
 •Permissions
 Citing Articles
 •Contact me when this article is cited
 Related Content
 •Related article
 •Related letters
 •Similar articles in JAMA
 Topic Collections
 •Journalology/ Peer Review/ Authorship
 •Patient-Physician Relationship/ Care
 •Psychosocial Issues
 •Psychiatry
 •Statistics and Research Methods
 •Alert me on articles by topic
 Social Bookmarking
  Add to CiteULike Add to Connotea Add to Del.icio.us Add to Digg Add to Reddit Add to Technorati Add to Twitter What's this?

Analyzing Effectiveness of Long-term Psychodynamic Psychotherapy—Reply

Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text and any section headings.

In Reply: In response to Dr Thombs and colleagues, because the number of controlled trials of LTPP was relatively small, we assessed within-group effect sizes in all studies. In the controlled studies, we found significantly larger within-group effect sizes in the LTPP conditions than in the control conditions. To assess the extent of this difference, we transformed the point biserial correlations used for tests of significance into between-group effect sizes in the form of a d statistic.1

These between-group effect sizes are not identical to between-group effect sizes as commonly assessed by calculating the difference between 2 treatments for each study. The between-group effect size we assessed may be larger than the underlying within-group effect sizes because they refer to different units. Our comparison of LTPP with other treatments considers treatment group rather than patient as the unit of analysis. A between-group effect size of 1.8 indicates that in the . . . [Full Text of this Article]

Falk Leichsenring, DSc
falk.leichsenring@psycho.med.uni-giessen.de
Department of Psychosomatics and Psychotherapy
University of Giessen
Giessen, Germany

Sven Rabung, PhD
Department of Medical Psychology
University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf
Hamburg, Germany



Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter     What's this?

RELATED ARTICLE

Effectiveness of Long-term Psychodynamic Psychotherapy: A Meta-analysis
Falk Leichsenring and Sven Rabung
JAMA. 2008;300(13):1551-1565.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

RELATED LETTERS

Analyzing Effectiveness of Long-term Psychodynamic Psychotherapy
Brett D. Thombs, Marielle Bassel, and Lisa R. Jewett
JAMA. 2009;301(9):930.
EXTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Analyzing Effectiveness of Long-term Psychodynamic Psychotherapy
Levente Kriston, Lars Hölzel, and Martin Härter
JAMA. 2009;301(9):930-931.
EXTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Analyzing Effectiveness of Long-term Psychodynamic Psychotherapy
Aaron T. Beck and Sunil S. Bhar
JAMA. 2009;301(9):931.
EXTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Analyzing Effectiveness of Long-term Psychodynamic Psychotherapy
Stefan Roepke and Babette Renneberg
JAMA. 2009;301(9):931-932.
EXTRACT | FULL TEXT  






HOME | CURRENT ISSUE | PAST ISSUES | TOPIC COLLECTIONS | CME | SUBMIT | SUBSCRIBE | HELP
CONDITIONS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
 
© 2009 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved.