Summary of Advances in Empirical Support for Psychological Treatments
Advances in Psychotherapy Identification
Focus on the definition and application of Empirically Supported Treatments (ESTs) and Evidence-Based Practice (EBP).
Relationship Between ESTs and EBP
EBP: Integration of research with clinical expertise and patient characteristics (APA, 2006).
ESTs serve as the research foundation for EBP but do not diminish clinical expertise.
Importance of Best Research
Movement toward ESTs is controversial.
EBP enhances clinical practice by combining scientific findings with clinician expertise.
ESTs show effective outcomes even in nonacademic, real-world settings.
Definition and Criteria of Best Available Research
Original criteria (Chambless & Hollon, 1998) based on well-designed studies.
Revised 2015 criteria emphasize using systematic reviews and all available Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs).
Single Case Designs (SCDs) useful for individual efficacy but not for general population conclusions.
Boness et al. (2020) as a Template for EST Identification
Clear identification of a specific treatment for a defined clinical problem is necessary.
The treatment must be psychological rather than medication-based.
Use of high-quality systematic reviews for EST identification (AMSTAR 2 guidelines).
Recommendations Based on Quality Evidence
Strong recommendations indicate moderate-high quality evidence of treatment efficacy.
Consideration of evidence from non-research settings.
Reviews should assess both immediate and long-term effectiveness outcomes.
Future Directions in EST Reviews
Encouragement for more systematic reviews of psychological treatments.
Focus on identifying both treatment packages and active ingredients within treatments.
Conclusion
CBT-I recognized in other EST systems (e.g., NICE guidelines).
Division 12 is crucial for evaluating and identifying ESTs.
A systematic approach can enhance scientific integration in psychological practice and improve treatment efficacy.