This is a series of short invited contributions from therapists and research workers who have volunteered to answer the following question: “If your fairy godmother were to wave her magic wand and give you an immediate answer to a question or questions, without having to do the relevant research, what would you most like to know?”

Shapiro and Shapiro (1982) argue the case that meta-analysis has made, and will increasingly make, an important contribution to the evaluation of the effects of psychological therapies. Briefly stated, they make the following claims for meta-analysis: (1) Meta-analysis provides systematic and quantitative methods for summarizing and integrating the voluminous and diverse literature on psychotherapy. (2) Meta-analysis reduces (eliminates?) the subjective bias that is said to vitiate traditional, qualitative reviews of the literature. Consistent with similar allegations by Smith et al. (1980), Shapiro and Shapiro (1982) suggest that the conclusions drawn in “some” of these traditional reviews “are a function of the assumptions, predispositions and consequent biases of the reviewer.” Meta-analysis, however, is put forward as a distinct alternative to this sorry state of affairs, since it purportedly overcomes these sources of personal and professional bias and results in more objective more accurate evaluations of the evidence. (3) Meta-analysis has “the same superiority over a traditional literature review as that enjoyed by a systematic therapy outcome study over a series of impressionistic case reports.” (4) The advent of objective, quantitative meta-analytic procedures does not abolish the need for traditional literature reviews subjective and qualitative as they might be. The latter have their limited place, just as impressionistic clinical case reports can complement well-controlled experimental outcome studies.

The article by Shapiro and Shapiro (1982) published in Behavioural Psychotherapy is one of three, or possibly four, which they have written on the subject of meta-analytic approaches to the evaluation of psychotherapy. Commenting on each of their articles would be burdensome for critics and tedious for readers. Wilson and Rachman (1982) have already written an evaluation of the Shapiros' position, and as Wilson (1982) gives an incisive and comprehensive critique of their Behavioural Psychotherapy article, I will confine myself to a few brief remarks.

Forty-four community mental health outpatients participated in an assertiveness training program in which three treatment methods were compared. Skill training aimed at training specific assertive responses by means of instruction, modeling, behavioral rehearsal, feedback, and homework assignments. Cognitive training focused on altering the irrational cognitions which theoretically inhibit the expression of assertive responses. A third group (Cognitive–Skill) received both forms of training simultaneously, and a fourth group (Waiting List) was included as a control. A behavioral roleplaying test (B.R.P.T.) and the Social Fear Scale were administered prior to and immediately following four individual training sessions occurring at one week intervals for all three treatment groups. Analyses of covariance of assertive content ratings made by independent judges for B.R.P.T. responses revealed that all three treatment groups evidenced significantly more assertive and effective responses on both refusal and behavior change situations when compared to the Waiting List control. Analyses of paralinguistic dimensions of the B.R.P.T. revealed training generally to be more successful for the Skill group.

The conversation of three small groups of manual workers was observed in order to provide tangible goals for conversation training. A wide range of conversation styles emerged from the data, providing ranges of responding for various behaviours like percentages of short initiations, longer initiations, questions and length of latencies. Ranges of responding were also shown for the patterns of certain types of conversation involving initiations and reactions to these utterances. Despite the wide ranges of style in the conversation of the normal groups, their behaviour was in marked contrast to three small groups of socially inept psychiatric patients, in that, the patients were discrepant on every index of social behaviour. The study provides clear targets for conversation training programmes in terms of both the frequencies with which patients should engage in behaviour and the patterns of utterances with which patients might respond. To illustrate the way in which the data act as goals, patient groups are compared before and after treatment

This study examined the generalization effects of two parent training phases (instructions plus feedback and self-management training) on parents implementation of behavior modification skills in extra training settings in the community. Using a multiple baseline design across families two families were sequentially introduced to each training condition. Instructions plus feedback provided home-based training to the parents in both stimulus control techniques (instruction giving, prompting) and the use of consequences (reinforcement reprimands, extinction and time-out). Self-management training involved teaching parents to manage their own behavior in specific parenting situations. Training involved teaching parents self-monitoring, goal setting, and planning skills specific to their performance of parenting skills in a range of community settings.