Preliminary Outcomes Report
Data from 715 clients across 28 trained TRTP Practitioners
A broader practice-based view of TRTP outcomes
The preliminary outcomes report adds an important practice-based evidence stream to the early research picture for The Richards Trauma Process.
Separate from the pilot study, the report examined outcome data collected from clients receiving TRTP in real-world private practice settings. This makes it a useful part of TRTP’s practice-informed research pathway: the process was being delivered by trained practitioners in the community, outcome data was gathered from that work, and those early patterns are now helping to inform the next stage of formal research.
The report should be understood as preliminary practice-based evidence. It does not replace controlled research, but it does provide a broader real-world dataset that supports further investigation.
What the report examined
The report analysed preliminary DASS-21 outcomes from 715 clients who received TRTP during 2017–2018 from 28 trained TRTP practitioners working in private practice across Australia.
Data was collected at two points: the client’s first TRTP session and their final TRTP session. Clients received either three or four TRTP sessions, with most completing the process in three sessions.
The DASS-21 is a widely used self-report measure of depression, anxiety and stress. In this report, it was used to examine whether scores changed between the first and final TRTP session.
What the report found
The report found reductions in depression, anxiety and stress scores between clients’ first and final TRTP sessions.
Among clients who began TRTP with clinically elevated DASS-21 scores, the report found that many moved into the normal range by the final TRTP session:
Percentage of clients who began with clinically elevated depression scores were in the normal depression range by the final session.
Percentage of clients who began with clinically elevated anxiety scores were in the normal anxiety range by the final session.
Percentage of clients who began with clinically elevated stress scores were in the normal stress range by the final session.
The report also calculated large effect sizes across depression, anxiety and stress. These findings were encouraging and formed part of the report’s conclusion that further research into TRTP was justified.
How these findings should be interpreted
These results are encouraging, particularly because they come from a large real-world practice sample rather than a small isolated group.
However, the report was not a randomised controlled trial. It did not include a control group, and outcomes were only measured from the first session to the final session. This means the results show strong early outcome patterns, but they do not prove that TRTP caused the changes observed.
For that reason, the report is best understood as a practice-based preliminary outcomes report. It contributes to the early evidence base for TRTP and helps support the case for larger, more rigorous future research.
Why this report matters
The outcomes report is important because it shows what was being observed across a broad group of clients and trained practitioners in everyday therapeutic settings.
This gives TRTP’s research pathway a practical foundation. The report does not examine an abstract theory or a process used by only one practitioner. It reflects early outcome data from TRTP as it was being delivered in real-world practice by multiple trained practitioners.
Together with the pilot study, the outcomes report helps show that TRTP is moving from practice-based development into formal evidence-building.
Limitations of the report
The report has clear boundaries.
The data was collected for in-house evaluation rather than as part of a controlled research trial. There was no randomisation, no control group, and no follow-up period beyond the final TRTP session. The report also used the DASS-21 only, meaning it measured depression, anxiety and stress, but did not include trauma-specific outcome measures.
These limitations do not make the report meaningless. They define what the report can and cannot show. It can show promising practice-based outcome patterns. It cannot, by itself, establish clinical efficacy or prove causality.
Where it sits in the research pathway
The outcomes report sits within the early, practice-informed stage of TRTP’s evidence-building pathway.
It provides a broad practice-based dataset that complements the pilot study and supports the case for further research. The next step is larger and more rigorous evaluation, including controlled study designs and longer-term follow-up.
The report is therefore an important foundation, not a final conclusion. It helps show why TRTP warrants continued professional attention, structured research and future controlled trials.
