Paradigm clash: Empirically supported treatments versus empirically supported psychotherapy practice

Psychotherapy Research

Volumn 10, Issue 4, 2000, Pages 488-493

  Bohart, Arthur C ^a  

^a CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0012328448     PISSN: 10503307     EISSN: 14684381     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/713663783     Document Type: Article

References (18)

1. Bachelor, A., & Horvath, A. (1999). The therapeutic relationship. In M. A. Hubble, B. L. Duncan, & S. D. Miller (Eds.), The heart & soul of change: What works in therapy (pp. 133–178). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
2. Bohart, A. (2000, August). A Passionate Critique of Empirically Supported Treatments and the Provision of an Alternative Paradigm. Paper presented at the American Psychological Association, Washington, DC.
3. Bohart, A. C., O’Hara, M., & Leitner, L. M. (1998). Empirically violated treatments: Disenfranchisement of humanistic and other psychotherapies. Psychotherapy Research, 8, 141–157.
4. Goldfried, M. R., & Wolfe, B. E. (1996). Psychotherapy practice and research: Repairing a strained alliance. American Psychologist, 51, 1007–1016.
5. Grawe, K. (1997). Research-informed psychotherapy. Psychotherapy Research, 7, 1–20.
6. Hubble, M. A., Duncan, B. L., & Miller, S. D. (1999). Directing attention to what works. In M. A. Hubble, B. L. Duncan, & S. D. Miller (Eds.), The heart & soul of change: What works in therapy (pp. 407–448). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
7. Kuhn, T. S. (1977). The essential tension: Selected studies in scientific tradition and change. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
8. Lampropoulos, G. K. (2000). A reexamination of the empirically supported treatments critiques. Psychotherapy Research, 10, 474–487.
9. Luborsky, L., Diguer, L., Seligman, D. A., Rosenthal, R., Krause, E. D., Johnson, S., Halperin, G., Bishop, M., Berman, J. S., Schweizer, E. (1999). The researcher’s own therapy allegiances: A “wild card” in comparisons of treatment efficacy. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 6, 95–106.
10. Murphy, J. J. (1999). Common factors of school-based change. In M. A. Hubble, B. L. Duncan, & S. D. Miller (Eds.), The heart & soul of change: What works in therapy (pp. 361–388). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
11. Norcross, J. C. (2000). President’s column: Empirically supported therapeutic relationships: A Division 29 Task Force. Psychotherapy Bulletin, 35(2), 2–4.
12. Orlinsky, D. E., Grawe, K., & Parks, B. K. (1994). Process and outcome in psychotherapy—Noch einmal. In A. E. Bergin & S. L. Garfield (Eds.), Handbook of psychotherapy and behavior change (4th ed., pp. 270–378). New York: Wiley.
13. Rosenbaum, R. (1994). Single-session therapies: Intrinsic integration? Journal of Psychotherapy Integration, 4, 229–252.
14. Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York: Basic Books.
15. Stiles, W. B., Honos-Webb, L., & Surko, M. (1998). Responsiveness in psychotherapy. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 5, 439–458.
16. Stiles, W. B., & Shapiro, D. A. (1989). Abuse of the drug metaphor in psychotherapy process-outcome research. Clinical Psychology Review, 9, 521–544.
17. Task Force on Promotion and Dissemination of Psychological Procedures (1995). Training and dissemination of empirically-validated psychological treatments: Report and recommendations. The Clinical Psychologist, 48, 3–23.
18. Wampold, B. E. (1997). Methodological problems in identifying efficacious psychotherapies. Psychotherapy Research, 7, 21–43.