Empirically Supported Treatment endeavour: A successful future or inevitable debacle?

Abstract

The Empirically Supported Treatment (EST) endeavour began with and has persisted through prodigious skepticism among practising clinical psychologists. Despite such criticism, however, the advent of managed care guidelines, growing emphasis on biological psychiatry, promotion of scientific interests, and the need for better patient care have validated the importance of this new conception of treatment to the field of psychology. The arguments held by proponents and opponents of the EST movement are delineated and analysed to more fully conceptualise the intricacies beneath the debate. This article is an attempt to clarify the validity and utility of both positions, and to promote understanding of the important implications that follow from endorsement of either perspective. The article closes with a discussion of the ways in which the value of both positions may be integrated into a cohesive and useful model for clinical research and practice, and provides recommendations and projections for future psychotherapy research.

The future of play therapy: Elevating credibility through play therapy research.

“…That is, as fiscal constraints become more pressing, it is possible that therapies that fail to have a clear and well-documented history of efficacy may no longer be funded and eventually be forced to the background. An additional and concerning perspective on the value of play therapy research lies in perceiving play therapy as either beyond current research methodology or criticizing evidence-based practices as unnecessary, flawed, or inappropriate (Foley, 2004; Lampropolous, 2000; Westen, Novotny, & Thompson-Brenner, 2004). Rather than taking an “either/or” perspective on this issue, Ray (2006) argues for a more collaborative approach:… “I believe that most play therapists know through their experiences that play therapy is effective but it is time that practice is fully examined to provide evidence to that effect” (p. 9).…”