When meta-analysis continues to mislead: A reply to Østergård and Hougaard (2020).

Reply to comments on an article by Duncan and Sparks (see record 2018-10637-001). Østergård and Hougaard (2020) reiterate the flawed conclusions of their meta-analysis of the Partners for Change Outcome Management System (PCOMS) and obfuscate the main point of our critique (Duncan & Sparks, 2020). Despite the lauded statistics and selection criteria, the inclusion of six significantly confounded investigations resulted in a misleading overattribution of meaning to studies of questionable methodology that warranted exclusion. Further, their hypothesis that social desirability leads to inflated effect sizes on the Outcome Rating Scale (ORS) is insufficient. It is not supported by studies finding comparable results to the ORS on independent outcome measures or investigations reporting that change on measures of life functioning, like the ORS, precedes that depicted on symptom scales. While more research is needed, the totality of credible research supports the efficacy of PCOMS. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).