作者: Kenneth I. Howard , David E. Orlinsky , Robert J. Lueger
DOI: 10.1192/BJP.165.1.4
关键词: Clinical trial 、 Clinical psychology 、 Empirical research 、 Outcome (game theory) 、 Medicine 、 Variety (cybernetics) 、 Psychotherapist 、 Psychological intervention
摘要: How can we design relevant psychotherapy research? The answer must be shaped by the objectives and potential consumers of such research. For over 40 years, “does work?” (Eysenck, 1952) held attention researchers, randomised clinical trial methodology seemed most appropriate empirical option for answering this question. There are now well 500 studies that attest to efficacy (see Smith et al, 1980; Shapiro & Shapiro, 1982; Lipsey Wilson, 1993, meta-analytic research summaries); it seems is one best documented medical interventions in history. But conclusion “works” akin finding antibiotics “work”. We left with daunting task determining which wide variety treatments (psychotherapies, antibiotics) illnesses (psychopathologies, infections). Morris Parloff (1982) warned us need specificity his classic article, “Bambi meets Godzilla”, but our preoccupation documenting has only recently abated enough mount specificity.