| Course | PS 360 Psychopathology |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 7 |
| Paper type | Treatment evidence paper |
| Length | About 980 words, 6 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Herzing University |
| Program | BS in Psychology |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for PS 360 Unit 7
What Controlled Trials Support for Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder in Adults, Graded Finding by Finding From Two Meta-Analyses, With No Recommendation for Any Individual
Student Name
Psychology, Herzing University
PS 360: Psychopathology
Instructor Name
February 23, 2026
What Controlled Trials Support for Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder in Adults, Graded Finding by Finding From Two Meta-Analyses, With No Recommendation for Any Individual
Purpose and Limits
This paper reports what randomized controlled trials have found about treatments for obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) in adults, and it grades the strength of each finding. It is a report on evidence written for a psychopathology course. It does not recommend any treatment to any person. Decisions about care are made between an individual and licensed clinicians, who weigh evidence alongside the person's circumstances, preferences and history in ways a literature paper cannot.
The Condition in Brief
The classification system used in this course places OCD in its own chapter alongside related conditions, separate from the anxiety disorders with which it was grouped in earlier editions (American Psychiatric Association [APA], 2022). The condition involves intrusive, unwanted thoughts and repetitive behaviors or mental acts that a person feels driven to perform, and it can take up a great deal of time and cause considerable distress. Trials of treatment for OCD commonly measure change using the Yale-Brown Obsessive Compulsive Scale, an interview-based rating of symptom severity, and both reviews discussed below used it as their main outcome.
Method of This Paper
The paper relies on two meta-analyses chosen because they approach the evidence differently. Öst et al. (2015) pooled 37 randomized controlled trials of cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) published from 1993 to 2014 and compared it with several control conditions. Skapinakis et al. (2016) used a network meta-analysis, which combines direct comparisons from trials with indirect comparisons across them, to compare psychological and medication treatments against placebo in 54 trials with 6,652 participants. Reading the two together shows where they agree and where uncertainty remains.
Reading the Numbers
The two reviews report results in different units, and a paper should not mix them. Öst et al. (2015) reported standardized effect sizes, which express the difference between groups in terms of how widely scores vary; by common convention, values around 0.2 are described as small, around 0.5 as medium and 0.8 or above as large. Skapinakis et al. (2016) reported mean differences in points on the Yale-Brown scale, along with credible intervals that show the range of values consistent with the data. A wide interval, as with combined treatments supported by a single small trial, signals that the estimate is uncertain even when its central value looks impressive. Keeping the units apart, and reporting the interval alongside the estimate, prevents a reader from treating a fragile result as a firm one.
Finding 1: CBT Produces Large Improvements Compared With Waiting or Placebo
Öst et al. (2015) reported very large effect sizes for CBT compared with waiting-list conditions (1.31) and with placebo conditions (1.33). An effect of that size means that, on average, people who received CBT in these trials improved considerably more than those who did not. The network meta-analysis agreed: behavioral therapy, cognitive therapy and CBT each produced greater reductions in symptom scores than drug placebo (Skapinakis et al., 2016).
Grade: strong
Two reviews using different methods reach the same conclusion across dozens of trials. Öst et al. (2015) noted a number of methodological problems in the trials and set out ways to make future studies more rigorous, which is why the grade is strong rather than conclusive, but the direction and size of the effect are consistent.
Finding 2: Forms of CBT Perform Similarly
Öst et al. (2015) found small and non-significant differences between individual and group CBT (0.17) and between exposure and response prevention and cognitive therapy (0.07). In other words, the trials did not show that one of these formats or approaches clearly outperformed another.
Grade: moderate
The comparisons rest on fewer trials than the main finding. A non-significant difference is not proof that two approaches are equal; it may reflect too few trials to detect a difference. The careful reading is that no clear difference has been shown.
Finding 3: Medications Help, With Smaller Average Effects
Skapinakis et al. (2016) found that clomipramine and the class of antidepressants known as selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) produced greater improvement than placebo, and that clomipramine was not clearly better than SSRIs. In the comparison by Öst et al. (2015), CBT was significantly better than antidepressant medication, with an effect size of 0.55.
Grade: strong for medication over placebo; moderate for the comparison with CBT
Medication trials were numerous, with 37 SSRI trials in the network analysis, which supports the first part. The comparison with psychological treatment is weaker for the reason described in the next finding.
Finding 4: The Comparison Between Therapy and Medication Is Uncertain
The network meta-analysis found larger effects for psychological treatments than for medications but identified a serious limitation: most psychotherapy trials included people already taking stable doses of antidepressants, with 12 of the 15 explicitly allowing them (Skapinakis et al., 2016). Those participants were therefore receiving both, which complicates any comparison. The authors concluded that, taking all the evidence into account, combining the two is likely to be more effective than psychological treatment alone, at least in severe OCD. Öst et al. (2015), comparing CBT plus medication with CBT plus placebo, found a difference of 0.25 that was not significant.
Grade: low to moderate
The two reviews read the combination question differently, and none of the trials was built to answer it. This is the point where the evidence stops being clear, and a careful paper says so rather than choosing a side.
Summary of Graded Findings
| Finding | Main source | Grade |
|---|---|---|
| CBT outperforms waiting and placebo | Öst et al., 2015; Skapinakis et al., 2016 | Strong |
| CBT formats perform similarly | Öst et al., 2015 | Moderate |
| Medications outperform placebo | Skapinakis et al., 2016 | Strong |
| Combined versus single treatment | Both, with differing readings | Low to moderate |
What the Evidence Does Not Say
Neither review says which treatment any particular person should receive. Average effects in trials describe groups; individuals respond differently, and trial participants may differ from people seen in everyday practice. Both reviews also predate trials published after their search dates. This paper stops at reporting and grading the evidence and leaves treatment decisions with licensed clinicians and the people they serve.
References
American Psychiatric Association. (2022). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed., text rev.). https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.books.9780890425787
Öst, L.-G., Havnen, A., Hansen, B., & Kvale, G. (2015). Cognitive behavioral treatments of obsessive-compulsive disorder. A systematic review and meta-analysis of studies published 1993-2014. Clinical Psychology Review, 40, 156-169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2015.06.003
Skapinakis, P., Caldwell, D. M., Hollingworth, W., Bryden, P., Fineberg, N. A., Salkovskis, P., Welton, N. J., Baxter, H., Kessler, D., Churchill, R., & Lewis, G. (2016). Pharmacological and psychotherapeutic interventions for management of obsessive-compulsive disorder in adults: A systematic review and network meta-analysis. The Lancet Psychiatry, 3(8), 730-739. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2215-0366(16)30069-4
What the PS 360 Unit 7 instructions ask for
The seventh PS 360 unit asks students to report on the treatment evidence for one condition and to judge its strength, without recommending treatment to anyone. Expect to describe the condition briefly with a cited source, explain where the evidence comes from, report findings from systematic reviews or meta-analyses with their figures, and grade each finding with reasons. Effect sizes and other numbers should be reported in their own units. Non-significant results should be described as no difference shown rather than proof of equality. Limits of the trials belong in the paper. Advice about medication or therapy for any person is outside the assignment. One well-defined condition makes a more focused paper than several broad ones.
How this PS 360 Unit 7 example is built
The sample opens with the paper's purpose and limits and a brief, cited description of OCD and the Yale-Brown scale. A method section explains why two meta-analyses with different designs were chosen. A section on reading the numbers separates standardized effect sizes from mean differences with credible intervals. Four findings follow, each with a grade and reasons: CBT against waiting and placebo, CBT formats compared, medications against placebo, and the uncertain comparison between therapy, medication and their combination. A summary table lists each finding, its source and its grade. The close explains what the evidence does not say about any individual and that later trials may change it.
PS 360 Unit 7 rubric: what full points look like
Herzing's rubric for the treatment evidence paper usually rewards a clear scope, accurate reporting of findings, explicit grading of evidence strength, recognition of limitations, a neutral conclusion and APA writing. Scope earns credit when the paper names one condition and states that it makes no recommendation. Reporting scores when figures appear with their units and sources. Grading is often the heaviest criterion, rewarding reasons for each grade, such as the number of trials or problems in their design. Limitations are credited when they are specific, such as the antidepressant use in therapy trials. The conclusion earns points for describing evidence at the group level and leaving decisions to people and their clinicians.
PS 360 Unit 7 help before you submit
Treatment papers lose points when they end by recommending a therapy or medication. Another frequent weakness is treating a non-significant comparison as proof that two treatments are equal. Students often mix effect sizes and raw score differences in one sentence, which misleads the reader. Some report only favorable findings and leave out the limitations the review authors stated. Others review several conditions so briefly that no finding is graded. Citing a single small trial as if it were settled evidence overstates the case. Omitting the outcome measure leaves the reader unable to judge what improved, since change on a symptom scale differs from remission or improved daily functioning.
Get a PS 360 Unit 7 example written to your instructions
Choose the condition your PS 360 assignment names, then send the Unit 7 instructions and your classroom rubric with it. The custom example we produce fixes one condition, reports design before result, grades every finding, reports disagreement and recommends nothing to anybody. First custom sample free, written to your instructions, back in 24 to 48 hours.
More PS 360 papers and psychology samples
- PS 360 Unit 1: Defining abnormality paper
- PS 360 Unit 2: Classification and criteria overview
- PS 360 Unit 3: Anxiety disorders case
- PS 360 Unit 4: Mood disorders case
- PS 360 Unit 5: Psychotic disorders paper
- PS 360 Unit 6: Personality or substance disorder case
- PS 360 Unit 8: Comprehensive case analysis
- PS 105 Unit 7: Adulthood and aging paper
- PS 130 Unit 7: Ethics and professional conduct paper
- PS 210 Unit 7: Adolescent development paper
- PS 303 Unit 7: Research ethics analysis
PS 360 Unit 7 questions, answered
How do I report effectiveness without recommending anything?
Keep the subject of every sentence the research rather than the reader. A paper can say that trials of a given approach reported certain outcomes in a described population, with citations, and stop there. It does not say that someone should try it. The shift from what studies found to what a person ought to do is exactly where this criterion is applied.
Do I need to cover medication as well as psychological approaches?
Follow your instructions, which vary considerably between sections. Where both are in scope, report each from the research literature and at the same level of caution, naming designs and attributing figures. Avoid dosing, regimens or anything that reads as clinical direction; that content belongs to prescribers. Describing what trials compared and what they reported is the academic version of the question.
Can I write about what worked for me?
Your own treatment history is private health information, and once it is in a submitted paper it has been shared with your instructor and possibly beyond. A single personal account is also not evidence about effectiveness, so it would weaken the section it sat in. Report the trials instead. If you want to write reflectively, ask your instructor whether a discussion post is the place.
Where can I find a free PS 360 Unit 7 sample paper?
This page holds the full PS 360 Unit 7 treatment evidence paper free, with four graded findings, a summary table and margin notes. Reviewing a different condition? Send the instructions and the evidence paper is written for you free.
Can the PS 360 Unit 7 paper recommend a treatment?
No. The sample reports and grades what trials found for groups and states that decisions about care belong to individuals and licensed clinicians.