Question

The efficacy of two kinds of cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) in relation to a clinical population were compared. The therapies differed on the dimension of how wedded they were to the rational-emotive behavioral therapy (REBT), a subtype of CBT that emphasizes a directive, confrontational approach to encourage a patient to recognize the irrationality of specific thought patterns. Forty adolescents at an inpatient clinic for treatment of self-destructive behaviors were randomly divided into two groups of equal size, one of which received the less challenging type of CBT (Treatment A) and one of which received the more challenging kind of CBT (Treatment B). All patients were treated by trained therapists in one-on-one sessions for 1.5 hours per day (broken down into 45-minute sessions) for six weeks. Null and alternative hypothesis

A) There is no significant difference in the effectiveness of Treatment A and Treatment B
B) Treatment A is more effective than Treatment B
C) Treatment B is more effective than Treatment A
D) Both treatments are equally effective

Answer 1

The question focuses on the comparison between two CBT approaches differing in their application of REBT, with the aim of determining their effectiveness in adolescents with self-destructive behaviors. The null and alternative hypotheses suggest either no difference or a difference in efficacy between the two treatments. Empirical studies on CBT support the modality's effectiveness in clinical settings.

Step-by-step explanation:

Comparison of Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy Approaches

The question pertains to a comparison of two types of cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) approaches and their efficacy in treating adolescents with self-destructive behaviors. Based on the information provided, the two types of CBT under comparison differ in their alignment with rational-emotive behavioral therapy (REBT), with Treatment A being less challenging and Treatment B being more directive and confrontational in nature. When formulating hypotheses for this study, one could posit that there is no significant difference in the effectiveness of Treatment A and Treatment B (Null hypothesis), or that one treatment is more effective than the other (alternative hypothesis).

Studies like the one presented by DeRubeis et al. (2005) and Butlera et al. (2006) have compared cognitive therapy with other forms of treatment, such as medication, and assessed their effectiveness, supporting the empirical status of cognitive-behavioral therapies. Furthermore, according to the National Association of Cognitive-Behavioral Therapists, CBT has evolved and been influenced by various theoretical perspectives, including behaviorism and the cognitive revolution, which underscores its value and applicability in clinical settings.

To properly assess the efficacy of these two different approaches within CBT, it would be essential to carry out a well-designed, randomized controlled trial with pre- and post-treatment assessments using standardized measurements to infer the effectiveness of Treatment A versus Treatment B on the patient's progress.