Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.
Specific factors support an individual approach to every patient and define specialized therapeutic models as a crucial component in the outcome of a treatment. In contrast, common factors refer to the assumption that all therapy methods share similar features that affect the effectiveness of medical treatment. I believe that the characteristics that all therapeutic models share, such as alliance and understanding, are more significant, because they vastly contribute and predict the success of a therapy model and withstand criticism from specific factor theorists.
Every therapy consists of an agreement between patient and therapist. The three parts that constitute such an alliance are bonding, discussion of the tasks required for therapy, and mutual understanding of the goals (Wampold, 2015). The bond refers to the quality of connection between the patient and the therapist. Then, they discuss the tasks that have to be accomplished during therapy. Finally, a clear comprehension of the objectives characterizes and seals a successful agreement. An alliance between the specialist and the patient plays an important role, because it may predict the outcome of a treatment before the final sessions (Laska et al., 2015). Since all therapy models share processes related to alliance, such as discussion and analysis of the issue, successful formation of a mutual understanding can facilitate finding the best solution and treatment methods as well as advance the therapeutic procedures.
Some critics of the common agreement factor have proposed that some of the features of the alliance are not dependant on the therapy model but rather originate from unique factors. For example, patients may influence the success of an agreement by making preparations and studying therapy models (Wampold, 2015). Another claim suggests that initial patient improvements affect the alliance (Laska et al., 2015). As a result of such claims, patients knowledge of the issue and first recovery signs play a more significant role than the therapists contributions. However, researchers suggest that the therapists influence on the outcome is higher than the patients preparations (Wampold, 2015). According to studies, a patients efforts do not predict successful results (Wampold, 2015). In addition, even patients with poor bonding patterns and unstable interpersonal communication may benefit from the therapists efforts and understanding of the case (Wampold, 2015). Despite the criticism of the alliance as an effective common factor in therapy, it provides an essential foundation to the success of any treatment and may predict and greatly influence the outcome.
Another argument suggests that studies of therapy models provide sufficient data that supports the difference between specific and common factors. According to it, validation of specific factors lacks sensitivity and therefore incorrectly labels all models outcomes and effects as similar (Norcross, 1995). However, recent studies suggest that specific treatment constitutes only five percent of the outcome, while the methods choice affects only one percent (Laska et al., 2015). By using scientific principles, researchers are able to predict such occurrences with greater accuracy and conclude that the difference between specific and common factors is not relevant. In addition, common factors, such as alliance and understanding between patient and therapist, contribute more than specific methods or personal approaches.
I believe that common factors define the success of therapy more than specific. My opinion is based on the fact that common features constitute an essential part of any therapeutic model or treatment and may predict the outcome. The data provided by research suggests that the difference between the outcomes of special and common methods is not significant, while the contribution of common factors is higher than specific.
References
Laska, K. M., Gurman, A. S., & Wampold, B. E. (2014). Expanding the lens of evidence-based practice in psychotherapy: A common factors perspective. Psychotherapy, 51(4), 467481. Web.
Norcross, J.C. (1995). Dispelling the dodo bird verdict and the exclusivity myth in psychotherapy. Psychotherapy, 32(3), 500-503.
Wampold, B.E. (2015). How important are the common factors in psychotherapy? World Psychiatry, 14, 270277.
Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.