Abstract
In this commentary, I advance the view that the scientist-practitioner gap is partly due to the research designs commonly used in psychotherapy research. Specifically, I believe that randomized controlled trials, which are important for establishing treatment efficacy and as leverage when making the case for the value of psychotherapy in relation to various stakeholders, are limited for further development of clinical theories. Instead, I find recent advances in cross-lagged panel modeling to be both clinically intuitive and stronger for causal inference than most other nonexperimental designs. In addition to discussing causal inference and clinical interpretation of cross-lagged panel models, I discuss the potential of improving mediation analysis, personalization of research, and studying issues of clinical timing. Finally, I briefly discuss some limitations of cross-lagged panel models. It is my belief that the use of these data analytic advances can make empirical research better live up to the innovations in Beck’s work.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.