RESUMO
Thomas and Schmitz claim that they "deliver a proof for the effectiveness of humanistic methods" (p. 25) with their study. However, they did not or were not able to verify their claim due to several reasons: The authors did not say if and if so to what extent the treatments carried out within the framework of the TK-regulation were treatments using humanistic methods. The validity of the only criterium used by the authors, the average duration of the inability to work, must be questioned. The inferential statistical treatment of the data is insufficient; a non-parametrical evaluation is necessary. Especially missing are personal details concerning the treatment groups (age, sex, occupation, method, duration and frequency of therapy), which are indispensable for a differentiated interpretation. In addition there are numerous formal faults (wrong quotations, mistakes in tables, unclear terms etc.). In view of this criticism we come to the conclusion that the results are to a large degree worthless, at least until several of our objections have been refuted by further information and adequate inferential statistical methods. This study is especially unsuitable to prove a however defined "effectiveness of out-patient psychotherapies", therefore also not suitable to prove the effectiveness of those treatments conducted within the framework of the TK-regulation and especially not suitable to prove the superiority of humanistic methods in comparison with psychoanalytic methods and behavioural therapy.