The "Research Jury Method": The Application of the Jury Trial Model to Evaluating the Validity of Descriptive and Causal Statements about Psychotherapy Process and Outcome

A rationale for using a qualitative "Research Jury Method" for assessing psychotherapy outcome as an alternative to randomized controlled trials is given. It is argued that the jury research method is compatible with scientific practice and that science itself relies on the method. Methods and results from two preliminary studies are briefly summarized. In the current study three jurors evaluated a rich case history to decide (a) whether the client changed, and (b) to what degree, and how, psychotherapy contributed. Results suggest the method can be a useful way of assessing psychotherapy outcome and can produce differentiated insights into case-specific changes and change processes. A conclusion is that we can draw inferences and make plausible cases that people change in psychotherapy and that therapy contributes to it from individual cases using rich data, qualitative analysis, and a jury method. In addition, we can learn things from this method that one cannot learn as easily from randomized controlled trials.