Being systematic and maybe even scientific about planning psychotherapy research

Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice

Volumn 11, Issue 4, 2004, Pages 387-390

  Haaga, David A F ^a  

^a AMERICAN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Change; Positive psychology; Psychotherapy research; Research strategy

Indexed keywords

CLINICAL PROTOCOL; DOCTOR PATIENT RELATION; FOLLOW UP; HEALTH PROGRAM; HUMAN; MEDICAL PRACTICE; MEDICAL RESEARCH; METHODOLOGY; OUTCOMES RESEARCH; PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE; PSYCHOTHERAPY; REVIEW; TREATMENT PLANNING;

EID: 9444233459     PISSN: 09695893     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/clipsy/bph095     Document Type: Review

References (6)

1. Daniels, J. (1998). Daniels' running formula. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
2. Doss, B. D. (2004). Changing the way we study change in psychotherapy. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 11, 368-386.
3. Pfitzinger, P. D., & Douglas, S. M. (2001). Advanced marathoning. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
4. Seligman, M. E. P., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (Eds.). (2000). Positive psychology. A special issue of American Psychologist, 55 1).
5. Wampold, B. E., Mondin, G. W., Moody, M., Stich, F., Benson, K., & Ahn, H. (1997). A meta-analysis of outcome studies comparing bona fide psychotherapies: Empirically, "All must have prizes." Psychological Bulletin, 122, 203-215.
6. Westen, D., Morrison, C. M., & Thompson-Brenner, H. (2004). The empirical status of empirically supported psychotherapies: Assumptions, findings, and reporting in controlled clinical trials. Psychological Bulletin, 130, 631-663.