You do not currently have permission to view the full text for this document. Please sign in to an account with an active subscription or contact support.
Emphasis on identifying evidence-based therapies (EBTs) has increased markedly. Lists of EBTs are the rationale for recommendations for how psychotherapy provider training programs should be evaluated, professional competence assessed, and licensure and reimbursement policies structured. There are however methodological concerns that limit the external validity of EBTs. Among the most salient is the circularity inherent in randomized control trials (RCTs) of psychotherapy that constrains the manner in which the psychological problems are defined, psychotherapy can be practiced, and change evaluated. RCT studies favor therapies that focus of specific symptoms and can be described in a manual, administered reliably across patients, completed in relatively few sessions, and involve short-term evaluations of outcome. The epistemological assumptions of a natural science approach to psychotherapy research limit how studies are conducted and assessed in ways that that advantage symptom-focused approaches and disadvantage those approaches that seek to bring broad recovery-based changes. Research methods that are not limited to RCTs and include methodology to minimize the effects of “therapist allegiance” are necessary for valid evaluations of therapeutic approaches that seek to facilitate changes that are broader than symptom reduction. Recent proposals to adopt policies that dictate training, credentialing, and reimbursement based on lists of EBTs unduly limit how psychotherapy can be conceptualized and practiced, and are not in the best interests of the profession or of individuals seeking psychotherapy services.