Book Review: Psychotherapy: Psychotherapy for Children and Adolescents: Evidence-Based Treatment and Case Examples
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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. …
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.023 | 0.009 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".