• DOI:10.1177/00221678221117111
• Corpus ID: 252064505

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

@article{Vos2022TheEO,
  title={The Effectiveness of Transactional Analysis Treatments and Their Predictors: A Systematic Literature Review and Explorative Meta-Analysis},
  author={Jo{\"e}l Vos and Biljana van Rijn},
  journal={Journal of Humanistic Psychology},
  year={2022}
}

• J. Vos, Biljana van Rijn
• Published 1 September 2022
• Psychology
• Journal of Humanistic Psychology

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. 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 . 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). TA may be considered an effective treatment for many clients.