Psychotherapeutic ProcessesEMPATHYNCT00620009
The Measurement of Empathy and Its Efficacy in Psychotherapy
A study testing Empathy Feedback in people with Psychotherapeutic Processes and Transference (Psychology), run by University of Illinois Chicago at 1 site in United States.
Trial summary
The purpose of the research is to: 1) to test whether psychotherapy including immediate feedback of empathy data is more efficacious than therapy without such an exchange of data, 2) to measure the degree of accuracy of therapist's empathy and its relationship to the patient's estimate of the therapist's empathy. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 18 to 65 years
- Conditions the study is for
- Psychotherapeutic Processes, Transference (Psychology)
- What is being tested?
- Empathy Feedback
- Type of treatment
- Lifestyle or therapy programme
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 16 participants
- Where
- 1 siteUnited States
- Study dates
- Jun 2002to Jun 2007
- Phase
- Interventional
- Are there results?
- None posted in the registry
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 18 to 65 years
- All sexes
- No healthy volunteers
- Adult, Older adult
Who may be able to join
- Outpatient psychotherapy at University of Illinois at Chicago
- Age 18-65
Who cannot join
- Psychosis
- Suicidality
- Organic Brain Disorder
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
United States1 site
University of Illinois at Chicago
Chicago, Illinois, 60608
About this study
The purpose of the research is to: 1) to test whether psychotherapy including immediate feedback of empathy data is more efficacious than therapy without such an exchange of data, 2) to measure the degree of accuracy of therapist's empathy and its relationship to the patient's estimate of the therapist's empathy.
Read the detailed description
Objective: To develop and evaluate a feedback method for measuring and increasing therapists' empathic accuracy and reducing empathic errors in psychotherapy. Method: Sixteen (16) patient-therapist pairs were randomly assigned to intervention and control groups. All patients rated their own functioning using the GAF (Global Assessment of Functioning) and predicted the accuracy with which their therapists would estimate their ratings. Therapists rated the patient's GAF, predicted the patients' ratings of their own GAFs, and rated their confidence in their own predictions. In the intervention condition, therapist and patients discussed the previous session's ratings for a few minutes of the therapy session. Results: Intervention therapists showed greater empathic accuracy relative to controls on our empathy measure (t(14) = 2.69, p < .01) and increased empathy over time on the Barrett-Lenard Empathy subscale (t(32) = 3.21, p < .01). We also found significant effects on errors related to perceived accuracy of therapist empathy. Patients in the control group were found to perceive their therapists to be either more or less accurate than was actually the case (over/under-idealization), but such biases were not as strong in the intervention group. Similarly, therapists in the control group were likely to over-estimate their own accuracy (over-confidence) to a greater extent than intervention therapists. Affective responses to the instrument were positive overall and did not differ by condition. Conclusion: Empathy feedback and feedback concerning degrees of patient idealization and therapist confidence may be effective in improving functioning as well as in increasing empathic accuracy in psychotherapy.
- Being tested
- Empathy Feedback
- Keywords
- Empathy, Feedback, Psychotherapy
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Empathy FeedbackBehavioural
Discussion of empathy ratings between patients and therapists during psychotherapy sessions.
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Control | No intervention | Therapists and patients record their estimates of the patient's Global Assessment of Functioning, but do not discuss these estimates in therapy sessions. |
| Empathy Feedback | Experimental | Therapists and patients record their ratings of the patient's Global Assessment of Functioning and discuss these ratings. Receives: Behavioral: Empathy Feedback |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Patient Global Assessment of Functioning
Measured: 20 psychotherapy sessions
Secondary outcomes (1)
Barrett-Lenard Relationship Inventory
Measured: Every 5th session, 20 sessions of psychotherapy
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted21 Feb 2008 (estimated)
- Study startJun 2002
- Primary completionJun 2007
- Study completionJun 2007
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Other trials for Psychotherapeutic ProcessesStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- More trials run by University of Illinois ChicagoThe sponsor's other registered studies.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase N/A
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Single blind
- Who is masked
- Participant
- Enrolment
- 16 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- University of Illinois Chicago
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Investigators
- Bhaskar N. Sripada, M.D., Principal investigator, University of Illinois Chicago
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT00620009
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- 2002-0381
- Acronym
- EMPATHY
- Status last verified
- Feb 2008
- First submitted
- 11 Feb 2008
- Last updated
- 21 Feb 2008
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- No
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 21 Feb 2008. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- The Measurement of Empathy and Its Efficacy in Psychotherapy
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT00620009
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- EMPATHY / 2002-0381
- Keywords
- Empathy, Feedback, Psychotherapy
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 16 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- University of Illinois ChicagoUniversity, hospital or other
- Study start
- Jun 2002
- Primary completion
- Jun 2007 (actual)
- Study completion
- Jun 2007 (actual)
- First posted
- 21 Feb 2008 (estimated)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
The purpose of the research is to: 1) to test whether psychotherapy including immediate feedback of empathy data is more efficacious than therapy without such an exchange of data, 2) to measure the degree of accuracy of therapist's empathy and its relationship to the patient's estimate of the therapist's empathy.
Detailed description
Objective: To develop and evaluate a feedback method for measuring and increasing therapists' empathic accuracy and reducing empathic errors in psychotherapy. Method: Sixteen (16) patient-therapist pairs were randomly assigned to intervention and control groups. All patients rated their own functioning using the GAF (Global Assessment of Functioning) and predicted the accuracy with which their therapists would estimate their ratings. Therapists rated the patient's GAF, predicted the patients' ratings of their own GAFs, and rated their confidence in their own predictions. In the intervention condition, therapist and patients discussed the previous session's ratings for a few minutes of the therapy session. Results: Intervention therapists showed greater empathic accuracy relative to controls on our empathy measure (t(14) = 2.69, p < .01) and increased empathy over time on the Barrett-Lenard Empathy subscale (t(32) = 3.21, p < .01). We also found significant effects on errors related to perceived accuracy of therapist empathy. Patients in the control group were found to perceive their therapists to be either more or less accurate than was actually the case (over/under-idealization), but such biases were not as strong in the intervention group. Similarly, therapists in the control group were likely to over-estimate their own accuracy (over-confidence) to a greater extent than intervention therapists. Affective responses to the instrument were positive overall and did not differ by condition. Conclusion: Empathy feedback and feedback concerning degrees of patient idealization and therapist confidence may be effective in improving functioning as well as in increasing empathic accuracy in psychotherapy.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Single blind (participant)
- Number of arms
- 2
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Control | No intervention | –Therapists and patients record their estimates of the patient's Global Assessment of Functioning, but do not discuss these estimates in therapy sessions. |
| Empathy Feedback | Experimental | Behavioral: Empathy FeedbackTherapists and patients record their ratings of the patient's Global Assessment of Functioning and discuss these ratings. |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 to 65 years
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (2 listed)
- Outpatient psychotherapy at University of Illinois at Chicago
- Age 18-65
Key exclusion criteria (3 listed)
- Psychosis
- Suicidality
- Organic Brain Disorder
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| Empathy FeedbackDiscussion of empathy ratings between patients and therapists during psychotherapy sessions. | Behavioural | Empathy Feedback |
Primary outcome
Patient Global Assessment of Functioning
Time frame: 20 psychotherapy sessions
1 secondary outcome
Barrett-Lenard Relationship Inventory
Time frame: Every 5th session, 20 sessions of psychotherapy
Results and safety
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 21 Feb 2008.
Related trials for Psychotherapeutic Processes
Recruiting
Dysthymia: Associated Costs, Treatment and Change Process
Depression, Cost Benefit Analysis
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
Bhaskar N. Sripada, M.D. principal investigator
University of Illinois Chicago
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing Empathy Feedback in people with Psychotherapeutic Processes and Transference (Psychology), run by University of Illinois Chicago at 1 site in United States.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 2 inclusion and 3 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 21 Feb 2008. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 1 site in United States. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Patient Global Assessment of Functioning (time frame: 20 psychotherapy sessions). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 21 Feb 2008; AzTrials last refreshed its copy on 8 Nov 2026.