Practice‐informed research and research‐informed psychotherapy

Abstract

The information processing demands of planning and conducting psychotherapy and the types of information that clinicians value potentially can inform research that is likely to be useful to clinicians. Four approaches to conducting research on psychotherapy issues-technology transfer studies, quasi-experimental single-case designs, mental health services research, and case-focused patient profiling-have the potential to inform the practicing therapist. These approaches generally are either treatment focused or patient focused, and can vary in their relevance to the individual case.

The scientifically‐minded psychologist: Science as a core competency

“…In that same article, Goldfried stated, "We may think of the clinical setting as consisting of the context of discovery, highlighting hypotheses that are worth investigating by researchers who operate within the context of confirmation" (p. 1244). These psychologists, along with many others (e.g., Beutler, Williams, Wakefield, & Entwistle, 1995;Carter, 2002;Hoshmand & Polkinghorne, 1992;Lueger, 2002), clearly understand that interplay between practice and science is essential if either is to be effective.…”

“…Training programs and continuing-education workshops need to focus on facilitating the development of such skills. Trainees and practicing psychologists must become familiar with the myriad of evaluation techniques available, including N ϭ 1 research (Stoltenberg et al, 2000), scientifically based critical thinking (Stricker & Trierweiler, 1995), and patient-focused (Asay et al, 2000) or case-focused services research (Lueger, 2002).…”

What is a scientist‐practitioner anyway?

“…The final article in the series (Lueger, 2002) addresses approaches to creating the desired synergy between practice and research. Whether the treatment or the patient is the primary interest, the key is that the research being described is all true to the clinical setting, and clearly would be placed in the effectiveness rather than the efficacy camp.…”

Collaborative Versus Adversarial Stances in Scientific Discourse: Implications for the Role of Systematic Case Studies in the Development of Evidence-Based Practice in Psychotherapy

“…They provide very limited information relevant to the mechanism of change or the refinement of the details of an intervention. In addition, RCTs are seldom conducted with samples which are representative of caseloads in routine practice settings (Lueger, 2002;Shapiro and Paley, 2006). Furthermore, because RCTs are expensive to set up, the current evidence from RCTs is unbalanced in that there is far more information on efficacy for medications than for psychotherapies, and within psychotherapy far more evidence on CBT interventions than for other modalities such as psychodynamic and systemic therapies (Larner, 2004;Shapiro and Paley, 2006).…”

“…Research on practice-based evidence Stiles, Barkham, Twigg, Mullin, Mellor-Clark and Cooper, 2006 ) addresses whether a treatment works in everyday clinical settings, that is the treatment's effectiveness or transportability (Lueger, 2002). Treatments shown to be efficacious in RCTs may not be equally effective in practice because of limitations on therapist training, limitations on resources, or because clients present obstacles to treatment not encountered in the research sample (Schoenwald and Hoagwood, 2001).…”