Objective: In psychotherapy, strength-based methods (SBM) represent efforts to build on patients' strengths while addressing the deficits and challenges that led them to come to therapy. SBM are incorporated to some extent in all major psychotherapy approaches, but data on their unique contribution to psychotherapy efficacy is scarce.
Methods: First, we conducted a systematic review and narrative synthesis of eight process-outcome psychotherapy studies that investigated in-session SBM and their relation to immediate outcomes. Second, we conducted a systematic review and multilevel comparative meta-analysis contrasting strength-based bona fide psychotherapy vs. other bona fide psychotherapy at post-treatment (57 effect sizes nested in 9 trials).
Results: Despite their methodological variability, the pattern of results in the process-outcome studies was generally positive, such that SBM were linked with more favorable immediate, session-level patient outcomes. The comparative meta-analysis found an overall weighted average effect size of g = 0.17 (95% CIs [0.03, 0.31], p < .01) indicating a small but significant effect in favor of strength-based bona fide psychotherapies. There was non-significant heterogeneity among the effect sizes (Q(56) = 69.1, p = .11; I2 = 19%, CI [16%, 22%]).
Conclusion: Our findings suggest that SBMs may not be a trivial by-product of treatment progress and may provide a unique contribution to psychotherapy outcomes. Thus, we recommend integration of SBM to clinical training and practice across treatment models.
Keywords: capitalization; multilevel meta-analysis; positive affect; positive interventions; resilience; resource activation; strength-based psychotherapy.