Empirically violated treatments: Disenfranchisement of humanistic and other psychotherapies

Author(s): OHara, M., Leitner, L. M.

Journal/Book: Psychother Res. 1998; 8: 72 Spring Street, New York, NY 10012. Guilford Publications Inc. 141-157.

Abstract: It is argued that the criteria for ''empirically validated treatments'' are restrictive and scientifically unjustified, could disenfranchise therapies which do not share the Division 12 task force's assumptions about the nature of psychotherapy, and will stifle psychological research. The criteria are based on a medical-like meta-model of psychotherapy designed to appeal to the managed-care market, but are inappropriate for therapies whose primary focus is not to ''cure disorder.'' We argue that empirical support for a therapy should include research based on methods compatible with the assumptions of the therapy, in particular on what it means to say that a given therapy ''works.'' Neither manualization nor the requirement of targeting therapy for treating specific disorders necessarily fit with humanistic assumptions. Natural science methodology also should not be privileged over human science methodology. Under criteria other than those of the task force there is considerable empirical support for humanistic assumptions.

Note: Article Bohart AC, Calif State Univ Dominguez Hills, Dept Psychol, Carson,CA 90747 USA

Keyword(s): OUTCOME RESEARCH; THERAPISTS; DEPRESSION; CLIENT

Zurück | Weiter