How practitioners can systematically use empirical evidence in treatment selection

Area of Science:

• Psychology
• Psychotherapy Research
• Clinical Psychology

Background:

• Current emphasis on empirically supported treatments (ESTs) highlights outcome differences across various theoretical models.
• This focus overlooks the lack of scientific consensus on significant outcome disparities between distinct treatment approaches.
• A substantial amount of data indicates that different treatments often produce comparable effects.

Purpose of the Study:

• To review existing viewpoints on the efficacy of empirically supported treatments.
• To challenge the prevailing focus on differentiating between treatments based on theoretical models.
• To propose an alternative framework for understanding treatment effectiveness.

Main Methods:

• Literature review of studies comparing outcomes of different therapeutic interventions.
• Analysis of existing data on treatment effectiveness and variability.
• Theoretical discussion of principles of change in psychotherapy.

Main Results:

• Evidence suggests that many empirically supported treatments yield highly similar outcomes.
• The scientific community lacks consensus on whether observed differences between treatments are substantial enough to warrant a focus on distinct models.
• The emphasis on differential outcomes may be less productive than previously assumed.

Conclusions:

• Shifting focus from the relative value of different theoretical models to identifying common and differential principles of change may be more beneficial.
• This approach could lead to a more nuanced and productive understanding of therapeutic mechanisms.
• Future research should explore shared and unique factors that drive therapeutic progress across diverse treatments.