How Well Do Both Evidence-Based Practices and Treatment as Usual Satisfactorily Address the Various Dimensions of Diversity?

Sue, Stanley; Zane, Nolan; Levant, Ronald F.; Silverstein, Louise B.; Brown, Laura S.; Olkin, Rhoda; Taliaferro, Greg

doi:10.1037/11265-008

Cited by 52 publications

(37 citation statements)

References 46 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…There are not that many psychotherapeutic interventions that meet the high standard of rigor or generalizability that some authors would require (Cournoyer and Powers 2002;. Most intervention research-whether efficacy or effectiveness studies-typically suffers from serious methodological shortcomings, especially regarding the populations that are sampled (Sue and Zane 2006). Invariably these studies have limited generalizability because of the restricted range of the sample studied and the similarly restricted range of interventions that are tested.…”

Section: Imperfect Scientific Foundations Of Evidencementioning

confidence: 96%

Overrating or Dismissing the Value of Evidence-Based Practice: Consequences for Clinical Practice

2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Current implementation of the evidence based practice (EBP) model in social work has focused on empirical evidence from efficacy studies, with far less attention to practitioner judgment and client values. Among many clinical social workers the opposite is often true: clinical judgment supersedes the use of scientifically tested techniques. Clinicians may reject EBP as coming out of narrowly focused, possibly irrelevant research, and adherents of EBP run the risk of discounting psychotherapy techniques derived from practice experience or the vast diversity of client situations-both positions threaten our effectiveness. Reasserting clinical judgment and the centrality of clients' experience into EBP, while enhancing traditional psychotherapy with strong treatment-effectiveness evidence, will improve clinical social work practice, especially in addressing the wide array of human problems and suffering that clients present, especially in the context of globalization and cultural diversity.

show abstract

Section: Imperfect Scientific Foundations Of Evidencementioning

confidence: 96%

Overrating or Dismissing the Value of Evidence-Based Practice: Consequences for Clinical Practice

2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Postmodernist paradigms provoke critical questions, like who might benefit and who might be silenced by the shift toward science and EBP. It is likely no coincidence that evidence-based strategies that are intended to be generalizable to mainstream populations are less effective for diverse, marginalized populations (Sue et al 2006), and attempts to find large enough samples for each classification of diversity seems like an inappropriate and inefficient strategy. It may be better to triangulate findings with a number of research strategies, and to elevate rigorous alternative research and local knowledge, than to evaluate the effectiveness of the techniques at the level of the RCT.…”

Section: Mutual Critiquementioning

confidence: 97%

“…These arguments are creditably well-aired in the psychology and mental health literature and include: EBP does poorly with non-dominant cultures and minority groups (Sue et al 2006); efficacy in controlled settings and clinical trials does not necessarily translate into effectiveness in clinical practice (Franklinet al 2006;Westen et al 2006); manualization might or might not improve outcomes (Addis et al 2006); and empirically supported treatment might or might not be more effective than other therapies ). There are also arguments about what should constitute evidence (Chwalisz 2003;, what should constitute research (Stiles et al 2006), and what components of therapy should be validated (Chambless et al 2006).…”

mentioning

confidence: 96%

Modernism, Postmodernism and (Evidence-Based) Practice

Ramey

Grubb

2009

Contemp Fam Ther

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

One dominant discourse in the mental health arena revolves around evidencebased practice (EBP). Although there is ongoing debate about the implementation of EBP in the mental health field, most of these discussions have been limited to modernist ideas. While discussions about EBP have occurred from alternate perspectives, particularly postmodernism, a lack of open dialogue has resulted in these two groups ''talking past each other'' (Levy in Family Process 45:55-73, 2006). In this article we discuss the positions of both modernism and postmodernism with consideration of their respective epistemologies and attitudes toward research and EBP. We argue that critical thinking about EBP needs to include mutual debate from both modern and postmodern perspectives.

show abstract

“…These have included an overemphasis on brief manualized treatments and specific effects as opposed to long-term treatment and common therapy effects, as well as the potential lack of applicability to a diverse range of patients varying in comorbidity, personality, race, ethnicity, and culture (Sue et al, 2006;Wampold, 2007;Westen, Novotny, & Thompson-Brenner, 2004). In response to these criticisms, other APA divisions offered additional frameworks for integrating the available research evidence.…”

Section: Estsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Changing paradigms from empirically supported treatment to evidence-based practice: A cultural perspective.

Christopher

2009

Professional Psychology: Research and Practice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Psychotherapy research guidelines have a profound impact on research, training, and practice, and they also influence reimbursement decisions that can have ethical and legal consequences. Furthermore, research guidelines have implications for the treatment of culturally diverse groups. Unfortunately, these implications have often been overlooked. Therefore, this article contrasts the impact of two prominent research guidelines on the development of culturally sensitive psychotherapies: (a) empirically supported treatments (ESTs) developed in 1995 by the American Psychological Association's (APA) Division 12 (Society of Clinical Psychology; Task Force on Promotion and Dissemination of Psychological Procedures, 1995), and (b) evidence-based practice in psychology (EBPP) developed by the APA ( 2006) Presidential Task Force on Evidence-Based Practice. Although overall we believe that EBPP is more responsive to the needs and characteristics of culturally diverse groups, ESTs also have many strengths. As the cultural implications of research guidelines are better understood, researchers and clinicians will be able to more effectively advance the development of culturally sensitive evidenced-based psychological treatments.

show abstract

How Well Do Both Evidence-Based Practices and Treatment as Usual Satisfactorily Address the Various Dimensions of Diversity?

Cited by 52 publications

References 46 publications

Overrating or Dismissing the Value of Evidence-Based Practice: Consequences for Clinical Practice

Overrating or Dismissing the Value of Evidence-Based Practice: Consequences for Clinical Practice

Modernism, Postmodernism and (Evidence-Based) Practice

Changing paradigms from empirically supported treatment to evidence-based practice: A cultural perspective.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About