Book Review: Psychotherapy: Psychotherapy for Children and Adolescents: Evidence-Based Treatment and Case Examples
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Psychotherapy Psychotherapy for Children and Adolescents: Evidence-Based Treatment and Case Examples John R Weisz. Cambridge (UK): Cambridge University Press; 2004. 528 p. US$35.00. Reviewer rating: Excellent John Weisz is an experienced researcher and clinician in child and adolescent treatment. The purpose of his book is to evaluate research on treatments tested and shown to work in children and adolescents with emotional and behavioural problems. He aims to correct a preceived deficit in transmission of research findings to clinical practice community, owing to of language differences as well as differences between research and clinical conditions. The book is aimed at practitioners, researchers, training directors, parents, and administrators, offering a choice of treatment appropriate to their various roles. The book is arranged in 6 sections labelled A to F. Section A is a 23-page introduction that provides a comprehensive background on child and adolescent therapy from its historical roots to studies of effectiveness and outcome. The last section (F), discusses Strengths, Limitations, and Future Directions of Evidence-Based Youth Psychotherapy. The 4 intervening chapters deal with treatment studies of following 4 major categories of disorders: fears and anxiety, depression, ADHD, and conduct problems and conduct disorder. The introduction includes some important background information. For instance, findings from studies of clinically guided treatment in usual care tend to show it has no benefit, and studies of the effects of integrating of usual care procedures into systems of care show little evidence of benefit (p 15). Metaanalysis of controlled studies of structured therapies for children and youth show benefits comparable with adults in effect sizes and precision of effect as well as in duration of effect. There are, however, problems with metaanalyses, and hence, an increasing use of focused review by different professionals such as pediatricians and child psychiatrists. For this review, author uses guidelines of American Psychological Association's Task Force of Society of Clinical Psychology (1995), which rates therapies as well-established or probably efficacious according to number and quality of supportive studies, use of a manual, specification of sample, and support by 2 or more investigators or research teams. Therapies that were well established and probably efficacious were further identified for 4 broad symptom and diagnostic clusters: fears and anxieties, depression, ADHD, and conduct problems and disorders. The studies reviewed in this book were selected from 350 studies meeting methodological requirements for inclusion in above-mentioned metaanlysis, meeting criteria of Task Force as either well established or probably efficacious, and further meeting other criteria imposed by author, such as addressing existing, compared with anticipated, psychological dysfunctio; treating a specific problem, compared with general harm or trauma; and focusing on primary behavioural and mental problems, compared with medical or physical problems. …
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,011 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,004 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,005 | 0,010 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,003 | 0,003 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,003 | 0,003 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,023 | 0,009 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».