As the empirically supported treatment (EST) effort has expanded, there are efforts to make the study of ESTs a more integral part of training programs. In its present form, the EST list provides a poor model of how to evaluate treatment and scientific issues related to our field. This article offers several suggestions regarding how to establish a more relevant scientific agenda for the committee's work if the study of ESTs is to usefully influence training programs. Recommendations are made to encourage programs and the CSP to study mechanisms of change, important contextual variables for therapy delivery, the distinction between statistical significance and clinical meaningfulness, dissemination, cost-effectiveness, and iatrogenic effects. It is argued that any program that created a curriculum educating students to thoughtfully address these issues when evaluating therapies would be producing sound clinical scientists regardless of the quality of the EST list itself.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Addis, M. E. (1997). Evaluating the treatment manual as a means of disseminating empirically validated psychotherapies. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 4, 1-11.
2.
American Psychological Association. (1996). Guidelines and principles for accreditation of programs in professional psychology. Washington, DC: Author.
3.
Beutler, L. E. (1998). Identifying empirically supported treatments: What if we didn't? Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 66, 113-120.
4.
Beutler, L. E., & Karno, M. P. (1999). Psychotherapy research: Basic or applied? Journal of Clinical Psychology, 55, 171-180.
5.
Borkovec, T. D., & Miranda, J. (1999). Between-group psychotherapy outcome research and basic science. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 55, 147-158.
6.
Cahill, S. P., Carrigan, M. H., & Frueh, B. C. (1999). Does EMDR work? And if so, why? A critical review of controlled outcome and dismantling research [Special issue: Advances in conceptualization and research on the efficacy and mechanism of EMDR]. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 13, 5-33.
7.
Calhoun, K. S., Moras, K., Pilkonis, P. A., & Rehm, L. P. (1998). Empirically supported treatments: Implications for training. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 66, 151-162.
8.
Carrigan, M. H., & Levis, D. J. (1999). The contributions of eye movements to the efficacy of brief exposure treatment for reducing fear of public speaking [Special issue: Advances in conceptualization and research on the efficacy and mechanism of EMDR]. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 13, 101-118.
9.
Chambless, D. L. (1999). Empirically validated treatments—what now? Applied and Preventative Psychology, 8, 281-284.
10.
Chambless, D. L., & Ollendick, T. H. (2001). Empirically supported psychological interventions: Controversies and evidence. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 685-716.
11.
Crits-Christoph, P., Frank, E., Chambless, D. L., Brody, C., & Karp, J. F. (1995). Training in empirically validated treatments: What are clinical psychology students learning? Professional Psychology: Research & Practice, 26, 514-522.
12.
Davidson, P. R., & Parker, K. C. H. (2001). Eye movement desensitization and reprocessing (EMDR): A meta-analysis. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 29, 305-316.
13.
Dawes, R. M. (1995). Standards of practice. In S. C. Hayes, V. M. Follette, R. M. Dawes, & K. E. Grady (Eds.), Scientific standards of psychological practice: Issues and recommendations. Reno, NV: Context Press.
14.
Dishion, T. J., McCord, J., & Poulin, F. (1999). When interventions harm: Peer groups and problem behavior. American Psychologist, 54, 755-764.
15.
Donenberg, G. R. (1999). Reconsidering “between-group psychotherapy outcome research and basic science”: Applications to child and adolescent psychotherapy outcome research. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 55, 181-190.
16.
Elkin, I. (1994). The NIMH Treatment of Depression Collaborative Research Program: Where we began and where we are. In A. E. Bergin & S. L. Garfield (Eds.), Handbook of psychotherapy and behavior change (4th ed., pp. 114-139). New York: John Wiley.
17.
Elkin, I., Shea, M. T., Watkins, J. T., Imber, S. D., Sotsky, S. M., Collins, J. F., et al. (1989). National Institute of Mental Health Treatment of Depression Collaborative Research Program: General effectiveness of treatments. Archives of General Psychiatry, 46, 971-982.
18.
Follette, W. C. (1995). Correcting methodological weaknesses in the knowledge base used to derive practice standards. In S. C. Hayes, V. M. Follette, R. M. Dawes, & K. E. Grady (Eds.), Scientific standards of psychological practice: Issues and recommendations (pp. 229-247). Reno, NV: Context Press.
19.
Follette, W. C. (1996). Introduction to the special section on the development of theoretically coherent alternatives to the DSM system. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 64(6), 1117-1119.
20.
Follette, W. C. (1997). A behavioral analytic conceptualization of personality disorders: A response to Clark, Livesley, and Morey. Journal of Personality Disorders, 11(3), 232-241.
21.
Follette, W. C., & Callaghan, G. M. (in press). The evolution of clinical significance. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice.
22.
Follette, W. C., & Compton, S. N. (1996). Correcting methodological weaknesses in traditional psychotherapy outcome research. Unpublished manuscript. (Available from first author, Department of Psychology/298, University of Nevada, Reno, NV 89557)
23.
Follette, W. C., & Houts, A. C. (1996). Models of scientific progress and the role of theory in taxonomy development: A case study of the DSM. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 64, 1120-1132.
24.
Follette, W. C., Naugle, A. E., & Linnerooth, P. J. N. (2000). Functional alternatives to traditional assessment and diagnosis. In M. J. Dougher (Ed.), Clinical behavior analysis (pp. 99-125). Reno, NV: Context Press.
25.
Garfield, S. L. (1996). Some problems associated with “validated” forms of psychotherapy. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 3, 218-229.
26.
Garfield, S. L. (1998). Some comments on empirically supported treatments. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 66, 121-125.
27.
Henry, W. P. (1998). Science, politics, and the politics of science: The use and misuse of empirically validated treatment research. Psychotherapy Research, 8, 126-140.
28.
Herbert, J. D., Lilienfeld, S. O., Lohr, J. M., Montgomery, R. W., O'Donohue, W. T., Rosen, G. M., et al. (2000). Science and pseudoscience in the development of eye movement desensitization and reprocessing: Implications for clinical psychology. Clinical Psychology Review, 20, 945-971.
29.
Hollon, S. D. (2001). Behavioral activation treatment for depression: A commentary. Clinical Psychology: Science & Practice, 8, 271-274.
30.
Hollon, S. D., & Beck, A. T. (1994). Cognitive and cognitive-behavioral therapies. In A. E. Bergin & S. L. Garfield (Eds.), Handbook of psychotherapy and behavior change (4th ed., pp. 428-466). New York: John Wiley.
31.
Jacobson, N. S., Dobson, K. S., Traux, P. A., Addis, M. E., Koerner, K., Gollan, J. K., et al. (1996). A component analysis of cognitive-behavioral treatment for depression. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 64, 295-304.
32.
Jacobson, N. S., Follette, W. C., & Revenstorf, D. (1984). Psychotherapy outcome research: Methods for reporting variability and evaluating clinical significance. Behavior Therapy, 15, 336-352.
33.
Jacobson, N. S., Martell, C. R., & Dimidjian, S. (2001). Behavioral activation treatment for depression: Returning to contextual roots. Clinical Psychology: Science & Practice, 8, 255-270.
34.
Jacobson, N. S., & Truax, P. (1991). Clinical significance: A statistical approach to defining meaningful change in psychotherapy research. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 59(1), 12-19.
35.
Kendall, P. C., Marrs-Garcia, A., Nath, S. R., & Sheldrick, R. C. (1999). Normative comparisons for the evaluation of clinical significance. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 67, 285-299.
36.
Krause, M. S., & Howard, K. S. (1999). “Between-group psychotherapy outcome research and basic science” revisited. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 55, 159-169.
37.
Lambert, M. J. (1991). An introduction to psychotherapy research. In L. E. Beutler & M. Crago (Eds.), Psychotherapy research: An international review of programmatic studies (pp. 1-11). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
38.
Lambert, M. J. (1992). Psychotherapy outcome research: Implications for integrative and eclectic theories. In J. C. Norcross & M. R. Goldfried (Eds.), Handbook of psychotherapy integration. New York: Basic Books.
39.
Luborsky, L., Singer, B., & Luborsky, L. (1975). Comparative studies of psychotherapies: Is it true that “everyone has won and all must have prizes”? Archives of General Psychiatry, 32, 995-1008.
40.
Miranda, J., & Borkovec, T. D. (1999). Reaffirming science in psychotherapy research. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 55, 191-200.
41.
Paul, G. (1967). Strategy of outcome research in psychotherapy. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 31, 109-118.
42.
Pilkonis, P. A., & Krause, M. S. (1999). Summary: Paradigms for psychotherapy outcome research. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 55, 201-205.
43.
Powell, R. A., & Gee, T. L. (1999). The effects of hypnosis on dissociative identity disorder: A reexamination of the evidence. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 44, 914-916.
44.
Rogers, L. K., Howard, K. I., & Vessey, J. T. (1993). Using significance tests to evaluate equivalence between two experimental groups. Psychological Bulletin, 113(3), 553-565.
45.
Rose, S., Bisson, J., & Wessely, S. (2001). Psychological debriefing for preventing posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) (Cochrane review). Retrieved October 7, 2001, from www.update-software.com/abstracts/ab000560.htm
46.
Shapiro, F. (1995). Eye movement desensitization and reprocessing: Basic principles, protocols, and procedures. New York: Guilford Publications.
47.
Shapiro, F. (1998). Eye movement desensitization and reprocessing (EMDR): Accelerated information processing and affect-driven constructions. Crisis Intervention and Time-Limited Treatment, 4, 145-157.
48.
Shapiro, F. (1999). Eye movement desensitization and reprocessing (EMDR) and the anxiety disorders: Clinical and research implications of an integrated psychotherapy treatment [Special issue: Advances in conceptualization and research on the efficacy and mechanism of EMDR]. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 13, 35-67.
49.
Shaw, B. F., Elkin, I., Yamaguchi, J., Olmsted, M., Vallis, M., Dobson, K. S., et al. (1999). Therapist competence ratings in relation to clinical outcome in cognitive therapy of depression. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 67, 837-846.
50.
Task Force on the Promotion and Dissemination of Psychological Procedures. (1995). Training in and dissemination of empirically validated psychological treatments: Report and recommendations. The Clinical Psychologist, 48, 3-23.
51.
Weisz, J. R., Hawley, K. M., Pilkonis, P. A., Woody, S. R., & Follette, W. C. (2000). Stressing the (other) three Rs in the search for empirically supported treatments: Review procedures, research, quality, relevance to practice and the public interest. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 7, 243-258.
52.
Wilkinson, L., & Task Force on Statistical Inference, APA Board of Scientific Affairs. (1999). Statistical methods in psychology journals: Guidelines and explanations. American Psychologist, 54, 594-604.
53.
Yates, B. T. (1999). Measuring and improving costs, cost-effectiveness, and cost benefit for substance abuse treatment programs (NIH Pub. No. 99-4518). Bethesda, MD: National Institute on Drug Abuse.
