Consumer Reports (1995, November) published an article which concluded
that patients benefited very substantially from psychotherapy, that l
ong-term treatment did considerably better than short-term treatment,
and that psychotherapy alone did not differ in effectiveness from medi
cation plus psychotherapy. Furthermore, no specific modality of psycho
therapy did better than any other for any disorder; psychologists, psy
chiatrists, and social workers did not differ in their effectiveness a
s treaters; and all did better than marriage counselors and long-term
family doctoring. Patients whose length of therapy or choice of therap
ist was limited by insurance or managed care did worse. The methodolog
ical virtues and drawbacks of this large-scale survey are examined and
contrasted with the more traditional efficacy study, in which patient
s are randomized into a manualized, fixed duration treatment or into c
ontrol groups. I conclude that the Consumer Reports survey complements
the efficacy method, and that the best features of these two methods
can be combined into a more ideal method that will best provide empiri
cal validation of psychotherapy.