The Effectiveness of Transactional Analysis Treatments and Their Predictors: A Systematic Literature Review and Explorative Meta-Analysis

• Published in: The Journal of humanistic psychology p. 2216782211171
• Main Authors: Vos, Joel, van Rijn, Biljana
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Los Angeles, CA SAGE Publications 01.09.2022
• Subjects: clinical trial; humanistic therapy; meta-analysis; outcome research; transactional analysis
• ISSN: 0022-1678; 1552-650X
• DOI: 10.1177/00221678221117111

Objectives: Despite many studies on transactional analysis (TA) psychotherapy, there are no comprehensive reviews or meta-analyses on its effectiveness. We conducted a systematic literature review and meta-analysis on TA psychotherapeutic treatments to examine the extent of psychological and psychosocial change in pre-post studies, the effects compared with other treatments in randomized clinical trials, and factors explaining these effects and differences. Method: We conducted a systematic literature review and meta-analysis according to Meta-Analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiolog (MOOSE) and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines in Pubmed, Medline, PsycInfo, Web-of-Knowledge, and scholar.google.com. Results: Overall, 41 clinical trials of TA treatments had moderate to large effects on psychopathology (Hedges’s g = .66), social functioning (g = .62), self-efficacy (g = .80), ego-state functioning (g = .69), well-being (g = .33), and behavior (g = .56). Compared with control conditions, TA had moderate to large effects on psychopathology (g = .61), social functioning (g = .69), self-efficacy (g = .88), ego-states (g = .70), well-being (g = .85), and behavior (g = .46). TA was more effective on most outcomes in individuals, groups, and families than in schools or prisons. Psychopathology changes were significantly predicted by improvements in ego-states, self-efficacy, social functioning, and client–practitioner relationship (r² range = .27–.43). Treatments were more effective if they included systematic assessment, treatment stages, psycho-education, TA-unique techniques, and an experiential focus (r² range = .03–.31). Conclusions: TA may be considered an effective treatment for many clients.