The Efficacy of Rational
Emotive Therapy: A Quantitative Review of the Outcome
Research. Rational Emotive Therapy (RET) has
become one of the most accepted forms of Cognitive Behavior
Modification since its initial development in the late
1950's and early 1960's. (Ellis, 1957; 1962; Gregg, 1973).
Narrative reviews have either supported RET's efficacy or
criticized its usefulness. Using a quantitative review
method (meta-analysis), this study examines the efficacy of
RET and addresses many of the criticisms advanced by
previous reviews of RET. Ledwidge (1978) reviewed 13 outcome
studies comparing Cognitive Behavior Modification (CBM) to
Behavior Therapy. Of the 13 studies, six were based on
either RET or Systematic Rational Restructuring. He
concluded that although these studies suggest no differences
between behavior therapy and Cognitive Behavior Therapy (and
by extension RET), this was only apparent because none of
these studies used a clinical sample. On the basis of these
findings, Ledwidge concluded that behavior therapy was the
superior form of treatment. DiGiuseppe and Miller (1977) reviewed
22 studies which examined the effectiveness of RET or a
closely related therapy. These studies were categorized in
two sets: comparative studies, which compared RET to some
other psychotherapy; and non-comparative research which
examined RET to baseline scores or against some form of
control. DiGiuseppe and Miller concluded that many of the
studies had a variety of methodological problems typical of
most psychotherapy research. They found RET to be
considerably more effective than no treatment control and
baseline scores. Zettle and Hayes (1980) reviewed 35
studies which investigated the theoretical assumptions,
individual treatment components, and overall effectiveness
of RET. They claimed all available outcome research were
either unsystematic case studies or consisted of analogue
research. Less than half (16) of the 35 studies were outcome
experiments. Based on these 16 studies, the authors
concluded that the clinical efficacy of RET was not
demonstrated. Prochaska (1984) surveyed eight studies which
examined the effectiveness of RET. From this limited sample,
he concluded that these studies demonstrated only equivocal
results and the most positive application of RET was for
reducing common anxiety. Based on their review of 47 RET
outcome studies, McGovern and Silverman (1984) concluded
that these studies supported the efficacy of RET.
Next
Previous
First Page
Method
Results
Discussion
References
Appendix