Making science matter in clinical practice: Redefining psychotherapy.

Abstract

Evidence suggests that the well-known chasm that exists between science and practice may be maintained less by the intransigence of practitioners than by the failure of scientists to (a) offer a workable model of how to integrate science to clinicians and (b) recognize how weak the evidence is for certain widely held beliefs about the nature of empirically supported treatments (ESTs). A rational weighing of the status of current evidence behooves scientists to take another, more careful look at why ESTs have failed to distinguish themselves from other treatments and to use this information in framing a broader approach to psychotherapy research.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 83 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.