Introduction: Paradigms for psychotherapy outcome research

✍ Scribed by Paul A. Pilkonis

• Publisher: John Wiley and Sons
• Year: 1999
• Tongue: English
• Weight: 21 KB
• Volume: 55
• Category: Article
• ISSN: 0021-9762
• DOI: 10.1002/(sici)1097-4679(199902)55:2<145::aid-jclp1>3.0.co;2-#

✦ Synopsis

The recent past has been a time of change for psychotherapy outcome research. Controversy has arisen as a result of the movement, supported by Division 12 (the Society of Clinical Psychology) of the American Psychological Association but also by a number of other constituencies, to identify and disseminate empirically supported treatments. There have also been policy and administrative changes at the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH), the largest sponsor of psychosocial treatment outcome research, with the appointment of a new Director in 1996 and a subsequent reorganization of the agency.

This special section of the Journal of Clinical Psychology grew out of my personal involvement at NIMH where I had the opportunity to serve as scientific advisor and interim head of what was then called the Psychosocial Treatment Research Program. In February 1995, I organized a small meeting of investigators doing psychosocial treatment research to promote some brainstorming about the state-of-the-art and to try to develop recommendations about future directions. Among the participants were Tom Borkovec, Jeanne Miranda, and Ken Howard. Borkovec was eloquent on the topic of good treatment outcome research needing to cast itself as a "basic" research enterprise exploring the nature of psychopathology and processes that can change such pathology. Subsequently he and Miranda expanded these thoughts into a manuscript that appeared in the NIMH Psychotherapy and Rehabilitation Research Bulletin (1996). Merton Krause and Ken Howard were sufficiently inspired to respond to this piece in writing, and their initial comments formed the basis for the article that appears