Psychotherapy research often compares specific treatments to control conditions to establish efficacy of the specified treatment. Research has typically evaluated common factor elements (e.g., credibility, expectancy) in treatments only after the first or second session, largely as a manipulation check and under the assumption that such factors are static. This study observed therapist common factor and model-specific interventions in three treatment approaches from a randomized control trial for generalized anxiety disorder across the entire early phase of treatment (i.e., first five sessions). The parent randomized control trial compared two treatment conditions, using an additive design where patients were randomized to receive either interpersonal/emotional processing interventions or supportive listening after receiving a session of cognitive-behavioral therapy. The first five video-recorded sessions of N = 40 randomly sampled participants were observationally coded with a multidimensional intervention measure, with subscales reflecting diverse theoretical orientations and common factors. Multilevel modeling was used to examine intervention use and investigate differences between treatment conditions and segments. Among the results, common factor interventions were rated as significantly more typical in cognitive-behavioral therapy compared with supportive listening. The pattern of intervention use of other subscales was generally consistent with the orientation of the respective protocols. In the early phase of treatment, supportive listening conditions do not appear to function as common factor controls in the manner that many might assume. Common factors are potentially enhanced in bona fide treatments that include a more detailed, specific rationale and clear and cohesive techniques and goals. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).

中文翻译：

---

在早期治疗阶段使用通用技术进行认知行为，人际/情感和支持性听力干预，以治疗广泛性焦虑症。

心理疗法研究通常将特定疗法与控制条件进行比较，以确定特定疗法的功效。研究通常仅在第一或第二阶段之后评估治疗中的公共因素元素（例如，信誉度，期望值），主要是作为操作检查，并假设这些因素是静态的。这项研究在治疗的整个早期阶段（即前五个疗程）通过一项针对广义焦虑症的随机对照试验的三种治疗方法观察了治疗师的公共因素和特定于模型的干预措施。父母的随机对照试验比较了两种治疗条件，使用加性设计，在接受认知行为治疗后，患者被随机分配接受人际/情感处理干预或支持性倾听。N = 40个随机样本参与者的前五个视频记录会话采用多维干预措施进行观察性编码，其子量表反映了不同的理论取向和共同因素。使用多级建模来检查干预措施的使用并调查治疗条件和治疗方案之间的差异。在这些结果中，与支持性倾听相比，认知行为治疗中常见因素干预的评分明显更高。其他分量表的干预使用模式通常与相应方案的定位一致。在治疗的早期阶段，支持性听力条件似乎并没有像许多人所假定的那样起公共因素控制的作用。善意治疗可能会增强常见因素，包括更详细，具体的原理以及清晰和凝聚力的技术和目标。（PsycINFO数据库记录（c）2020 APA，保留所有权利）。