The best ever meta-analysis on the effectiveness of Transactional Analysis
To cite this article: Joel Vos & Biljana van Rijn (2022)Â The Effectiveness of Transactional Analysis Treatments and Their Predictors: A Systematic Literature Review
and Explorative Meta-Analysis, Journal of Humanistic Psychology 1–37,1
and Explorative Meta-Analysis, Journal of Humanistic Psychology 1–37,1
Â
To link to this article:Â https://journals.
Â
Abstract
Objectives: Despite many studies on Transactional Analysis (TA) psychotherapy, there are no comprehensive reviews or meta-analyses on its effectiveness. We conducted a systematic literature review and meta-analysis on TA psychotherapeutic treatments to examine the extent of psychological and psychosocial change in pre-post studies, the effects compared with other treatments in randomized clinical trials, and factors explaining these effects and differences.
Method: We conducted a systematic literature review and meta-analysis according to Meta-Analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines in Pubmed, Medline, PsycInfo, Web-of- Knowledge, and scholar google.
Results: Overall, 41 clinical trials of TA treatments had moderate to large effects on psychopathology (Hedges’s g = .66), social functioning (g = .62), self-efficacy (g = .80), ego-state functioning (g = .69), well-being (g = .33), and behavior (g = .56). Compared with control conditions, TA had moderate to large effects on psychopathology (g = .61), social functioning (g = .69), self-efficacy (g = .88), ego-states (g = .70), well-being (g =.85), and behavior (g = .46). TA was more effective on most outcomes in individuals, groups, and families than in schools or prisons. Psychopathology changes were significantly predicted by improvements in ego-states, self- efficacy, social functioning, and client–practitioner relationship (r2 range = .27–.43). Treatments were more effective if they included systematic assessment, treatment stages, psycho-education, TA-unique techniques, and an experiential focus (r2 range = .03–.31).
Conclusions: TA may be considered an effective treatment for many clients.
Method: We conducted a systematic literature review and meta-analysis according to Meta-Analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines in Pubmed, Medline, PsycInfo, Web-of- Knowledge, and scholar google.
Results: Overall, 41 clinical trials of TA treatments had moderate to large effects on psychopathology (Hedges’s g = .66), social functioning (g = .62), self-efficacy (g = .80), ego-state functioning (g = .69), well-being (g = .33), and behavior (g = .56). Compared with control conditions, TA had moderate to large effects on psychopathology (g = .61), social functioning (g = .69), self-efficacy (g = .88), ego-states (g = .70), well-being (g =.85), and behavior (g = .46). TA was more effective on most outcomes in individuals, groups, and families than in schools or prisons. Psychopathology changes were significantly predicted by improvements in ego-states, self- efficacy, social functioning, and client–practitioner relationship (r2 range = .27–.43). Treatments were more effective if they included systematic assessment, treatment stages, psycho-education, TA-unique techniques, and an experiential focus (r2 range = .03–.31).
Conclusions: TA may be considered an effective treatment for many clients.