2005
DOI: 10.1080/10720530590914770
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Empirical Validation and Professional Codes of Ethics: Description or Prescription?

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
12
0

Year Published

2006
2006
2014
2014

Publication Types

Select...
5
3
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 15 publications
(12 citation statements)
references
References 29 publications
0
12
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The dissemination of ESTs, RCTs, and cognitive‐behavioral therapy has also influenced third‐party payers’ perceptions: that what is best practice and fundable must involve such approaches (Greer & Rennie, 2006), which inevitably positions non‐CBT therapies as less fundable and degrades the status of nonexperimental approaches and stakeholders in process‐outcome research. Such critique has been mirrored in the criticism of ESTs for their constrictive implications for research (Bohart, 2005; Bryceland & Stam, 2005; Dumont & Fitzpatrick, 2005; Honos‐Webb, 2005; Levitt, Neimeyer, & Williams, 2005; Mahrer, 2005). Such criticisms underscore the controversial nature of ESTs within psychology and created suggestions for alternative and additional research and therapeutic approaches (Beutler & Johannsen, 2006; Bohart, 2006; Duncan & Miller, 2006; Norcross & Lambert, 2006; Stricker, 2006; Wampold, 2006).…”
Section: Reconceptualizing Evidencementioning
confidence: 99%
“…The dissemination of ESTs, RCTs, and cognitive‐behavioral therapy has also influenced third‐party payers’ perceptions: that what is best practice and fundable must involve such approaches (Greer & Rennie, 2006), which inevitably positions non‐CBT therapies as less fundable and degrades the status of nonexperimental approaches and stakeholders in process‐outcome research. Such critique has been mirrored in the criticism of ESTs for their constrictive implications for research (Bohart, 2005; Bryceland & Stam, 2005; Dumont & Fitzpatrick, 2005; Honos‐Webb, 2005; Levitt, Neimeyer, & Williams, 2005; Mahrer, 2005). Such criticisms underscore the controversial nature of ESTs within psychology and created suggestions for alternative and additional research and therapeutic approaches (Beutler & Johannsen, 2006; Bohart, 2006; Duncan & Miller, 2006; Norcross & Lambert, 2006; Stricker, 2006; Wampold, 2006).…”
Section: Reconceptualizing Evidencementioning
confidence: 99%
“…There are important concerns about the impact that newly imposed practices are having (e.g., the effects of the new regimes of so-called ''evidence-based'', ''empirically validated'' treatments in the NHS - Bryceland & Stam, 2005;House & Loewenthal, 2008) -and the consequent knock-on effects of these trends on the integrity of therapy trainings. Certainly, the tangible demoralization of training and trainees in the USA is well documented (e.g.…”
Section: Commentary: the Current State Of Training We're Inmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In addition, to be considered a true treatment effect, the results should be replicated by a different research team and optimally should be conducted via a manual . Although the use of the internally valid, randomized control trails for determining if an intervention is efficacious became widely accepted, this medical model-derived form of research has been criticized because it limits the demonstration of effectiveness for other forms of psychotherapy not easily tested by the RCT approach (Bryceland & Stam, 2005). In the same way, Bohart (2005) argued that many other therapeutic approaches can be construed as evidence-based that are safe and helpful but do not fit into the randomized controlled clinical trial criteria.…”
Section: The Nature Of Psychotherapy and Evidence-based Therapymentioning
confidence: 99%