The promise of science-based training and application in psychological clinical science.

Abstract

Baker, McFall, and Shoham (2008) analyzed and critiqued the state of training in clinical psychology, asserting that much of this training is not sufficiently influenced by science. They asserted that the emergent demands of health care, with its attendant costs and resource constraints, require that mental and behavioral health care become increasingly efficient, effective, and cost-effective. Baker et al. (2008) then offered examples of how science-based evidence and methods could influence training in clinical psychology to achieve those goals. Laska, Gurman, and Wampold (2014, pp. 467-481) critiqued aspects of the Baker et al. (2008) paper. In the current paper, we argue that Laska et al. (2014) misconstrued points made in the early Baker paper. We also assert that evidence of common factors in psychological interventions is in no way antithetical or problematic to a science-based approach to clinical training and application. Further, we argue for a multidimensional approach to evaluating intervention performance, one that involves an evaluation of efficacy, effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, translation potential, and so on. Finally, we discuss how researchers can most efficiently develop intervention methods and delivery systems that are superior to the induction of common factors per se.