A Meta-Analysis of Couples Coping Enhancement Training (CCET) Effectiveness from 2000 to 2022

Omid Isanejad; Shirin Naghibalsadate

doi:10.18502/qjcr.v23i89.15789

Omid Isanejad Ph. D. in Family Counseling, Associate Professor of Family Counseling, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, University of Kurdistan, Sanandaj, Iran.
Shirin Naghibalsadate M.A. of Family Counseling, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, University of Kurdistan, Sanandaj, Iran

DOI: https://doi.org/10.18502/qjcr.v23i89.15789

Keywords: Meta-analysis, Couples Coping Enhancement Training.

Abstract

Aim: Many studies have been conducted to investigate the effectiveness of couple coping skills training. Many of these studies found substantial differences when compared to the control group, however, the exact effect is unclear, and more research is needed to integrate these findings. The goal of this meta-analysis was to assess the efficacy of Couples Coping Enhancement Training (CCET). Methods: Twenty studies that can be investigated in terms of technique were chosen and analyzed. SID.IR, Magiran.com, Noormags.com, Sciencedirect.com, jstor.org, tandfonline.com, Wiley.com, link.springer.com, APA and Google Scholar databases are among the information search resources. Couples coping enhancement training (CCET) was the search term. CMA2 software and Hedges' g index were used for data analysis and effect size calculation. Results: The findings of this meta-analysis showed that the fixed effect size of CCET is 0.27 and the random effect size is 0.13. When the heterogeneity of results was examined using Cochran's Q test, the Q value was 2488.87 and the I-squared value was 92.16, both of which were significant (p > 0.001). As a result, the effect sizes vary, and the random effect model should be used to examine the effects. The g value of the random Hedges was 0.27 (p < 0.001). Clinically, this value is regarded as less than usual. As a result, it was decided that CCET was ineffective. Furthermore, a comparison of effects in studies conducted in Iran (64 studies) and Switzerland (132 studies) reveals that the fixed and random Hedges' g in Iran are 0.62 and 0.73, respectively, and 0.06 and 0.09 in Switzerland. The value of I square in both societies is higher than 0.90. Hedges' g has a minor effect on Swiss society and a moderate effect on Iranian society. Conclusions: Therapists should pay attention to the ignored elements discussed in this article in addition to treatment.