Reservations about the conclusions of the interdivisional (APA Divisions 12 & 29) task force on evidence-based therapy relationships: what do we know, what don't we know?

Nikolaos Kazantzis, Timothy J Cronin, Peter Joseph Norton, Ka Fung Lai, Stefan G Hofmann

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleOtherpeer-review

Abstract

We offer a critical and constructive appraisal of the conclusions provided by the Interdivisional (American Psychological Association [APA] Divisions 12 29) Task Force on Evidence-Based Therapy Relationships. We highlight problems in overlapping terminology and definitions, as well as problems in the conduct of its meta-analyses (i.e., duplication of studies between reviews, inappropriate study inclusion, and use of measures of specific constructs for the calculation of effects for multiple relationship elements). On this basis, we express reservation about the conclusions offered by the APA Task Force. This special issue explores whether there are other therapeutic relationship elements that warrant consideration and further study. We were particularly interested in those elements that showed promise based on empirical or theoretical grounds, and in each article, we asked for an account of how the case formulation would guide the methods of adaptation for each individual client, and how the element would contribute to clinically relevant changes
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)423 - 427
Number of pages5
JournalJournal of Clinical Psychology
Volume71
Issue number5
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2015

Cite this

@article{ab6e9c38806b413abf2730e457b4e7d6,
title = "Reservations about the conclusions of the interdivisional (APA Divisions 12 & 29) task force on evidence-based therapy relationships: what do we know, what don't we know?",
abstract = "We offer a critical and constructive appraisal of the conclusions provided by the Interdivisional (American Psychological Association [APA] Divisions 12 29) Task Force on Evidence-Based Therapy Relationships. We highlight problems in overlapping terminology and definitions, as well as problems in the conduct of its meta-analyses (i.e., duplication of studies between reviews, inappropriate study inclusion, and use of measures of specific constructs for the calculation of effects for multiple relationship elements). On this basis, we express reservation about the conclusions offered by the APA Task Force. This special issue explores whether there are other therapeutic relationship elements that warrant consideration and further study. We were particularly interested in those elements that showed promise based on empirical or theoretical grounds, and in each article, we asked for an account of how the case formulation would guide the methods of adaptation for each individual client, and how the element would contribute to clinically relevant changes",
author = "Nikolaos Kazantzis and Cronin, {Timothy J} and Norton, {Peter Joseph} and Lai, {Ka Fung} and Hofmann, {Stefan G}",
year = "2015",
doi = "10.1002/jclp.22178",
language = "English",
volume = "71",
pages = "423 -- 427",
journal = "Journal of Clinical Psychology",
issn = "0021-9762",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "5",

}

Reservations about the conclusions of the interdivisional (APA Divisions 12 & 29) task force on evidence-based therapy relationships: what do we know, what don't we know? / Kazantzis, Nikolaos; Cronin, Timothy J; Norton, Peter Joseph; Lai, Ka Fung; Hofmann, Stefan G.

In: Journal of Clinical Psychology, Vol. 71, No. 5, 2015, p. 423 - 427.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleOtherpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Reservations about the conclusions of the interdivisional (APA Divisions 12 & 29) task force on evidence-based therapy relationships: what do we know, what don't we know?

AU - Kazantzis, Nikolaos

AU - Cronin, Timothy J

AU - Norton, Peter Joseph

AU - Lai, Ka Fung

AU - Hofmann, Stefan G

PY - 2015

Y1 - 2015

N2 - We offer a critical and constructive appraisal of the conclusions provided by the Interdivisional (American Psychological Association [APA] Divisions 12 29) Task Force on Evidence-Based Therapy Relationships. We highlight problems in overlapping terminology and definitions, as well as problems in the conduct of its meta-analyses (i.e., duplication of studies between reviews, inappropriate study inclusion, and use of measures of specific constructs for the calculation of effects for multiple relationship elements). On this basis, we express reservation about the conclusions offered by the APA Task Force. This special issue explores whether there are other therapeutic relationship elements that warrant consideration and further study. We were particularly interested in those elements that showed promise based on empirical or theoretical grounds, and in each article, we asked for an account of how the case formulation would guide the methods of adaptation for each individual client, and how the element would contribute to clinically relevant changes

AB - We offer a critical and constructive appraisal of the conclusions provided by the Interdivisional (American Psychological Association [APA] Divisions 12 29) Task Force on Evidence-Based Therapy Relationships. We highlight problems in overlapping terminology and definitions, as well as problems in the conduct of its meta-analyses (i.e., duplication of studies between reviews, inappropriate study inclusion, and use of measures of specific constructs for the calculation of effects for multiple relationship elements). On this basis, we express reservation about the conclusions offered by the APA Task Force. This special issue explores whether there are other therapeutic relationship elements that warrant consideration and further study. We were particularly interested in those elements that showed promise based on empirical or theoretical grounds, and in each article, we asked for an account of how the case formulation would guide the methods of adaptation for each individual client, and how the element would contribute to clinically relevant changes

UR - http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jclp.22178/epdf

U2 - 10.1002/jclp.22178

DO - 10.1002/jclp.22178

M3 - Article

VL - 71

SP - 423

EP - 427

JO - Journal of Clinical Psychology

JF - Journal of Clinical Psychology

SN - 0021-9762

IS - 5

ER -