School Psychotherapy

Two early meta-analyses of school-based psychotherapy. Prout and DeMartino (1986) concluded that school-based psychotherapy had an effective size of 0.58, while Prout and Prout (1998) concluded that it had an effective size of 0.98.

Reese, Prout, Zirkelback, and Anderson (2010) questioned these earlier studies based on the "file drawer problem." Meta-analyses, they noted, tend to have inflated effect sizes because they rely on published studies which have found larger effect sizes, while studies that do not find significant effect sizes tend to get "filed" away instead of being published. They note that McLeod and Weisz (2004) conducted a meta-analysis of dissertation studies of the effects of youth psychotherapy yielded effect sizes about half of those of published studies. (Dissertation studies, they note, "are typically well-designed, include review (i.e., committees) at several steps, and are completed (i.e., published as a dissertation) regardless of the results."

Reese, Prout, Zirkelback, and Anderson (2010) conducted a meta-analysis of 65 dissertation studies of school-based psychotherapy. They found an overall effect size of 0.44, not much different than what Prout and DeMartino (1986) had found. Put differently, these authors found that "students who received a therapeutic intervention improved, on average, roughly .5 SD more than did students who received no treatment." Also like Prout and DeMartino (1986) , they found a slightly large effect size among elementary-aged students. Finally, the found a higher effect size for externalizing, rather than internalizing, issues.

Baskin, Slaten, Crosby, Pufahl, Schneller, and Ladell (2010) conducted a meta-analysis of 107 studies on school-based psychotherapy. The found an overall effect size of 0.45. They found interventions for adolescents were more effective than those for children (0.59 to 0.35). They also found that interventions for one gender were more effective than combined gender interventions genders (0.54 for females, 0.51 for males, 0.33 for combined gender). Interventions led by licensed professionals were more effective (0.62) than those led by graduate students (0.17) and paraprofessionals (0.45). Individual and group interventions were equally efficacious (0.35 and 0.36).

Baskin, Slaten, Sorenson, Glover-Russell, and Merson (2010) conducted a meta-analysis of 83 studies of youth psychotherapy -- both school-based and non-school-based. The authors an effect size of 0.50 for mental health outcomes and an effect size of 0.36 for academically related outcomes.

* * * * *

Baskin, T. W., Slaten, C. D., Crosby, N. R., Pufahl, T., Schneller, C. L., & Ladell, M. (2010). Efficacy of counseling and psychotherapy in schools: A meta-analytic review of treatment outcome studies 1Ψ7. The Counseling Psychologist, 38(7), 878-903.

Baskin, T. W., Slaten, C. D., Sorenson, C., Glover-Russell, J., & Merson, D. N. (2010). Does youth psychotherapy improve academically related outcomes? A meta-analysis. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 57(3), 290.

Prout, H. T., & DeMartino, R. A. (1986). A meta-analysis of school-based studies of psychotherapy. Journal of School Psychology, 24(3), 285-292.

Prout, S. M., & Prout, H. T. (1998). A meta-analysis of school-based studies of counseling and psychotherapy: An update. Journal of School Psychology, 36(2), 121-136.

Reese, R. J., Prout, H. T., Zirkelback, E. H., & Anderson, C. R. (2010). Effectiveness of school‐based psychotherapy: A meta‐analysis of dissertation research. Psychology in the Schools, 47(10), 1035-1045.