To assess or not assess hypnotic suggestibility? That is the question.

To assess or not assess hypnotic suggestibility? That is the question. Dr. Howard Sutcher (2008) reports four cases in which the patients he treated profited from treatment yet " differed vastly in their levels of hypnotizability " (p. 61). He uses this observation to support his position that hypnotic suggestibility scores can tell us very little about treatment outcome. If Dr. Sutcher is correct, then it makes little sense to test for hypnotic suggestibility to assist in treatment planning. However, the case for or against suggestibility assessment should not rest on anecdotal observations and a handful of case studies. Anecdotal observations can generate useful hypotheses; however, they often have limited evidential value and are no substitute for well-controlled studies with relatively large numbers of patients. Indeed, the author reported on standardized hypnotic suggestibility assessment in only one of the four cases he described, so it is questionable as to what extent his observations bear on standardized suggestibility assessment. Nevertheless, the case studies reported do constitute a demonstration proof that not everyone who is suggestible will respond to a hypnotic treatment, and some patients who are not very suggestible at all will respond to a treatment that incorporates hypnosis. Accordingly there is not a one-to-one relation between suggestibility and treatment outcome. Yet this is hardly a newsflash. Clinicians who use hypnosis will learn very quickly that not all suggestible individuals respond to treatments that incorporate hypnosis. And this is the way it ought to be. Hypnosis itself is not a stand-alone treatment that depends on achieving an absolute threshold of responsivity for success. Rather, it is an adjunctive method that can be valuable when combined with a variety of interventions. Meta-analyses consistently support the efficacy of hypnosis in psychotherapies ranging from psychodynamic to