The integration of self-determination principles and scientifically informed treatments is the next tier

Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice

Volumn 10, Issue 3, 2003, Pages 318-319

  Joiner Jr , Thomas E ^a   Sheldon, Kennon M ^b   Williams, Geoffrey ^c   Pettit, Jeremy ^a  

^a FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF ROCHESTER   (United States)

Author keywords

Scientifically supported treatments; Self determination theory

Indexed keywords

ETHICS; HUMAN; MENTAL DISEASE; PSYCHOANALYSIS; PSYCHOTHERAPY; REVIEW; SELF CONCEPT; SELF DETERMINATION; TREATMENT PLANNING;

EID: 17444406726     PISSN: 09695893     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/clipsy/bpg028     Document Type: Review

References (6)

1. Dawes, R. M., Faust, D., & Meehl, P. E. (1989). Clinical versus actuarial judgment. Science, 243, 1668-1674.
2. Meehl, P. E. (1986). Causes and effects of my disturbing little book. Journal of Personality Assessment, 50, 370-375.
3. Meehl, P. E. (1954). Clinical versus statistical prediction: A theoretical analysis and review of the evidence. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
4. Schneider, K. J. (2003). A welcome step: Let's climb to the next tier. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 10, 316-317.
5. Sheldon, K., Williams, G., & Joiner, T. (2003). Self-determination theory in the clinic: Motivating physical and mental health. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
6. Sheldon, K. M., Joiner, T. E., Pettit, J. W., & Williams, G., (2003). Reconciling humanistic ideals and scientific clinical practice. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 10, 302-315.