Reports an error in "A qualitative meta-analysis examining clients’ experiences of psychotherapy: A new agenda" by Heidi M. Levitt, Andrew Pomerville and Francisco I. Surace (Psychological Bulletin, 2016[Aug], Vol 142[8], 801-830). In the article, the 2nd sentence in the Broadening the Forms of Power When Considering Client–Therapist Differences section, “Indeed, most of the studies (55/66, 83.3%) in these categories focused either on the power differential within the therapeutic relationship (37) or culturally based power differences between therapists and clients (29).” should read: “Indeed, most of the studies (49/59, 83.1%) in these categories focused either on the power differential within the therapeutic relationship (38) or culturally based power differences between therapists and clients (31).” (The following abstract of the original article appeared in record 2016-21269-001.) This article argues that psychotherapy practitioners and researchers should be informed by the substantive body of qualitative evidence that has been gathered to represent clients’ own experiences of therapy. The current meta-analysis examined qualitative research studies analyzing clients’ experiences within adult individual psychotherapy that appeared in English-language journals. This omnibus review integrates research from across psychotherapy approaches and qualitative methods, focusing on the cross-cutting question of how clients experience therapy. It utilized an innovative method in which 67 studies were subjected to a grounded theory meta-analysis in order to develop a hierarchy of data and then 42 additional studies were added into this hierarchy using a content meta-analytic method—summing to 109 studies in total. Findings highlight the critical psychotherapy experiences for clients, based upon robust findings across these research studies. Process-focused principles for practice are generated that can enrich therapists’ understanding of their clients in key clinical decision-making moments. Based upon these findings, an agenda is suggested in which research is directed toward heightening therapists’ understanding of clients and recognizing them as agents of change within sessions, supporting the client as self-healer paradigm. This research aims to improve therapists’ sensitivity to clients’ experiences and thus can expand therapists’ attunement and intentionality in shaping interventions in accordance with whichever theoretical orientation is in use. The article advocates for the full integration of the qualitative literature in psychotherapy research in which variables are conceptualized in reference to an understanding of clients’ experiences in sessions.

中文翻译：

---

“对客户的心理治疗经验进行定性的荟萃分析：一个新议程”：对Levitt，Pomerville和Surace的更正（2016年）。

报告了Heidi M. Levitt，Andrew Pomerville和Francisco I. Surace撰写的“定性荟萃分析，研究了客户的心理治疗经验：一个新议程”中的错误（心理公告，2016年8月，第142卷[8]，第801页） -830）。在本文中，“在考虑客户与治疗师之间的差异时扩大权力的形式”部分中的第二句话是：“实际上，这些类别中的大多数研究（55 / 66，83.3％）都侧重于治疗关系内的权力差异（37）或治疗师与服务对象之间基于文化的权力差异（29）。” 应该读为：“的确，这些类别中的大多数研究（49 / 59，83.1％）都侧重于治疗关系内的力量差异（38）或治疗师与服务对象之间基于文化的力量差异（31）。”（原始文章的以下摘要出现在创纪录的2016-21269-001中。）本文认为，心理疗法从业人员和研究人员应从实质性机构那里获得定性证据，这些证据已被收集来代表客户自己的治疗经验。当前的荟萃分析对定性研究进行了分析，这些研究分析了在英语期刊中出现的成人个体心理治疗中客户的经历。这份综合性评论将来自各种心理治疗方法和定性方法的研究进行了整合，重点是客户如何体验治疗的跨领域问题。它利用一种创新的方法，对67个研究进行了扎根的理论荟萃分析，以建立数据层次结构，然后使用内容荟萃分析方法将42个其他研究添加到该层次结构中，总计共有109个研究。根据这些研究的可靠结果，研究结果强调了对客户至关重要的心理治疗经验。产生了以过程为中心的实践原则，可以使治疗师在关键的临床决策时刻加深对客户的了解。基于这些发现，提出了一项议程，其中的研究重点在于提高治疗师对服务对象的理解，并将他们视为会议中变革的推动者，支持服务对象作为自我修复的范例。这项研究旨在提高治疗师对客户体验的敏感性，从而根据所使用的理论取向，扩大治疗师在制定干预措施时的态度和意愿。本文主张将定性文献完全整合到心理治疗研究中，其中变量的概念化是参考对客户在会议中的经验的理解。