Related Experiment Video
Updated: Aug 10, 2026
07:13
A Rat Model of Pressure Overload Induced Moderate Remodeling and Systolic Dysfunction as Opposed to Overt Systolic Heart Failure
Published on: April 30, 2020
Clinically significant but impractical? A response to Hageman and Arrindell
1University of Washington, Seattle 98195-6560, USA.
Behaviour Research and Therapy
|December 22, 1999
Summary
The traditional clinical significance model is often preferred over newer methods due to its simplicity. While revised models offer improvements, they yield similar individual-level results, making the original approach more practical for psychotherapy research.
Area of Science:
- Psychology
- Clinical Psychology
- Psychotherapy Research
Background:
- The traditional clinical significance model by Jacobson, Follette, and Revenstorf (1984) is a standard in psychotherapy research.
- Hageman and Arrindell proposed adaptations to this model, emphasizing the distinction between individual and group analysis and incorporating measurement unreliability.
Purpose of the Study:
- To compare the traditional clinical significance model with the adapted approach suggested by Hageman and Arrindell.
- To evaluate the implications of this comparison for assessing clinically significant change in psychotherapy.
Main Methods:
- Utilized data originally presented by Jacobson and Truax.
- Compared the traditional clinical significance model with Hageman and Arrindell's revised procedures for assessing change.
- Analyzed results at both individual and group levels.
Main Results:
- The revised method, while incorporating measurement unreliability, produced individual-level results similar to the traditional model.
- The distinction between individual and group analysis was a key feature of the revised approach.
Conclusions:
- Despite its merits, the complexity of the revised method makes the traditional model by Jacobson, Follette, and Revenstorf (1984) more preferable for practical application in psychotherapy research.
- The traditional model remains a valuable tool for defining meaningful change.
