While a significant amount of attention has been paid to the efficacy of marriage and family therapy (MFT), research on the effectiveness of MFT is lacking. Furthermore, university training clinics are an underutilized, yet excellent resource for collecting effectiveness research data. This study examined the current practices at the Center for Family Services, an MFT university training clinic, by examining therapists' ratings of therapy effectiveness for clients seen more than once over the past five years (n = 558). Data on therapy modality, treatment length, fee for services, presenting problems, and termination category were examined. A statistically significant relationship was found between treatment outcome and each of the following variables: treatment length, number of presenting problems, and termination category (completed or dropout). Furthermore, termination category best discriminated membership in the three outcome groups. A statistically significant relationship was not found between treatment outcome and the following variables: therapy modality and fee for services. Strengths, limitations, suggestions for future research, and implications of the findings are discussed. / Master of Science

The present study examined the impact of gender and sex-role orientation on therapy effectiveness. Previous research suggested that same-sex pairings and androgynous therapists would be most desirable. Interviewers (therapists) were 25 male and 15 female third-year doctoral psychology students, each interviewing a male and a female undergraduate student (client). Results did not support the hypothesis that gender and sex role were powerful predictors of therapy effectiveness. However, this study did find that therapist self-rated interpersonal competency and accurate self-perception predicted therapy effectiveness for female clients. Therapists' consistency in using various parameters (techniques) of therapy was related to client perceived effectiveness. Opposite-sex pairings were less likely to result in momentary feelings of discomfort during initial interviews.

There is a scarcity of objective criteria upon which to select among the available therapies for those most likely to benefit specific patients. Comparative research has suggested that the outcomes of alternative and competitive therapies are equivalent. There are few facts available concerning which patients benefit most from even the more popular therapies. The purpose of this study was to find a type of patient for which differential improvement could be predicted. Neither therapy decreased checklist scores or increased speaking time significantly more than the other. Repressors and sensitizers responded equally to therapy. When dropout rates were analyzed there were also no significant differences between the therapies or between repressors and sensitizers. When posttherapy scores from both therapies were compared to pretherapy scores, no significant changes were found. The latter finding was important for understanding the absence of support for the hypotheses. Since the subjects did not improve as a result of either desensitization or rational-emotive therapy, there was no opportunity to observe the hypothesized differential changes. Given this hindsight, it was concluded that speech anxiety may not be a desirable disorder with which to study the prediction that repression-sensitization is related to the outcome of rational-emotive therapy and desensitization. It was recommended that future research of this relationship utilize a disorder for which therapeutic effectiveness is more firmly established.