Empirically supported psychotherapies: Comment on Westen, Novotny, and Thompson-Brenner (2004)

Paul Crits-Christoph, Steven D. Hollon, G. Terence Wilson

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

45 Scopus citations

Abstract

D. Westen, C. M. Novotny, and H. Thompson-Brenner (2004) suggested that efforts to identify empirically supported treatments are misguided because they are based on assumptions that are not appropriate for some types of treatment and patients. The authors of this comment argue that Westen and colleagues are simply incorrect when they assert that empirically supported treatments require that psychopathology must be highly malleable, that treatments must be brief, or that the samples studied are unrepresentative of the kinds of patients typically encountered in clinical practice - comorbidity is common in many clinical trials. Randomized controlled trials remain the most powerful way to test notions of causal agency.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)412-417
Number of pages6
JournalPsychological Bulletin
Volume131
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - May 2005

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • General Psychology

Keywords

  • Comorbidity
  • Empirically supported psychotherapies
  • Randomized clinical trials

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Empirically supported psychotherapies: Comment on Westen, Novotny, and Thompson-Brenner (2004)'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this