Division Of Clinical Psychology Research Articles

Some Comments on “Principles of Empirically Supported Interventions in Counseling Psychology”

In this article, the author offers his appraisal of the Principles of Empirically Supported Interventions as developed by a Special Task Group of the Division of Counseling Psychology and also of the three articles evaluating these principles with reference to family interventions, anger management, and career counseling. In general, the author responds quite favorably to the principles presented and to the critical appraisal of the guidelines published earlier by the Division of Clinical Psychology. The latter are tied to Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders diagnoses and are not sensitive to important client attributes such as ethnicity, motivation for treatment, education, and the like. The counseling psychology principles also emphasize a number of other important research considerations. The author also offers some specific comments for the three areas mentioned earlier with special reference to some unmet research needs.

A pilot study of joint working practices between educational and clinical psychologists

Educational and clinical psychologists were requested to report on joint working practices. Questionnaires were circulated through British Psychological Society publications of the Division of Educational and Child Psychology and the Division of Clinical Psychology. From 21 responses completed by educational psychologists, 19 reported experience of joint work with clinical psychologists. From 26 responses completed by clinical psychologists, 25 reported experience of working with educational psychologists. Benefits of joint working included greater clarity for the client, increased mutual understanding and sharing ideas. Difficulties in joint working included practical obstacles (e.g. shortage of time), differences in approach, management issues and negative experiences. Strategies to overcome these difficulties came within three categories – communication, clarification of roles and management initiatives.

Promotion of empirically validated psychotherapies in counselling psychology

The extent to which psychotherapies have empirical support is a long-standing and controversial issue in counselling psychology. Recently, the American Psychological Association Division of Clinical Psychology (Division 12) established a task force on Promotion and Dissemination of Psychological Procedures. The role of the task force was to define empirically validated treatment and make recommendations in relation to methods for educating mental health professionals, third party payers and the public about effective psychotherapies. The findings and recommendations of the task force are brought to the attention of readers. We believe that counselling psychologists should be proactive in the promotion of empirically validated psychotherapies.

A Guide to Treatments That Work

Back to table of contents Previous article Next article Book ReviewFull AccessA Guide to Treatments That WorkJacob H. Jacoby, M.D., Ph.D.Jacob H. JacobySearch for more papers by this author, M.D., Ph.D.Published Online:1 Oct 1999https://doi.org/10.1176/ps.50.10.1365AboutSectionsPDF/EPUB ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack Citations ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InEmail As the jacket of A Guide to Treatments That Work indicates, this comprehensive volume (594 fine-print, double-column pages and tables) assembles a distinguished group of 61 psychiatrists and clinical psychologists to take stock "of current drug treatment and psychotherapeutic interventions to see which treatments actually work, which do not, and which still remain beyond the scope of our current knowledge." To accomplish this daunting and important task, "All available outcome and clinical trials are reviewed, and detailed specification of methods and procedures to ensure effective treatment for each major DSM-IV disorder is provided." The volume encompasses 28 chapters as well as a 12-page "Summary of Treatments That Work" presented at the beginning of the book.The editors provide chapters for all of the DSM-IV categories that have known treatments. The pattern is to provide two chapters—one discussing pharmacologic treatment approaches and the other discussing nonpharmacologic or psychosocial treatment approaches—for disorders for which both types of therapies exist; some disorders are covered in only one chapter. The purpose of the chapters is to present the most rigorous, scientifically based evidence for the efficacy of treatments that is available.As the editors point out in their enlightening introductory chapter, "It is clear that for some disorders there are treatments widely recognized by experienced clinicians to be useful that may not have been subjected to rigorous investigation." The aim of this book is "to be clear with readers what treatments have been scientifically validated, what treatments are felt by a large number of experts to be valuable but have never been properly scientifically examined, and what treatments are known to be of little value."The origins of the book are not without history and controversy, as is cogently noted in both the foreword and the afterword by Martin E. P. Seligman. Dr. Seligman was president of the American Psychological Association's division of clinical psychology in the mid-1990s when he created a task force to review well-done, controlled outcome studies and identify "treatments that work" (1). The history relates to a progression of outcome studies dating from Eysenck's 1952 landmark paper (2), "The Effects of Psychotherapy," in which no evidence of psychotherapy's effectiveness was noted, to more current and increasingly positive evaluations of both psychotherapy outcomes and the methodologic rigor used in their assessment. Today we are moving closer to recognizing which psychotherapeutic or pharmacologic approach is most effective for which person and in which treatment setting.The controversy relates to the fear, beginning with the development of this book, that if it were an "official" document of the division, it might imply that the American Psychological Association endorsed its contents. We have seen the development of a level of confidence in treatment approaches that has now blossomed into "empirically supported treatment guidelines" published by the American Psychological Association (3) and "practice guidelines" published by the American Psychiatric Association—for instance, the American Psychiatric Association's guidelines for major depressive disorders in 1993 (4), for bipolar disorders in 1994 (5), and for substance use disorders in 1995 (6), followed by others. However, one should note that this level of confidence in guidelines may not always be warranted. They can stifle other therapeutic approaches less amenable to the research paradigms currently used, or they may be employed in a clinically restrictive way by contemporary care (that is, cost) managers.Be that as it may, this book represents an invaluable update of contemporary psychotherapeutic, including psychopharmacologic, treatments of DSM-IV psychiatric disorders. It will be useful for both the academician and the practicing clinician and will be referred to frequently by its appreciative owner.Dr. Jacoby is codirector of the department of psychiatry at Bayonne (N.J.) Hospital and clinical associate professor of psychiatry at the University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey in Newark.edited by Peter E. Nathan, Ph.D., and Jack M. Gorman, M.D.; New York City, Oxford University Press, 1998, 594 pages, $75

Empirically validated treatments in clinical psychology

For the protection of clients and the long-term survival of their profession, clinical psychologists are being urged to take a leading role in the promotion of empirically validated treatments. Recently, the American Psychological Association's Division of Clinical Psychology (Division 12) established a Task Force on Promotion and Dissemination of Psychological Procedures to define empirically validated treatment and make recommendations in relation to methods for educating mental health professionals, third party payers and the public about effective psychotherapies. Predictably, the task force report has a somewhat controversial status but continues to be an influential “blueprint” for the improvement of clinical psychology in various countries including Australia.

The case for evidence-based psychotherapy treatment guidelines.

WILLIAM C. SANDERSON, Ph.D.* One contemporary issue in area of psychotherapy which has received increasing attention concerns advantages and disadvantages of treatmentguideline development.1-3 The discussion of treatment-guideline development appears to be fueled, for most part, by changes in healthcare delivery system in United States. It seems safe to say that in past, practitioners of many forms of psychotherapy were less concerned than now about scientific evaluation and accountability. Accountability was desirable, but not necessary. However, need for accountability has sharply increased, as treatments without supporting efficacy data are unlikely to survive. Indeed, as noted by Trabin,4 the development of an accountable, science-based model of behavioral healthcare may be catalyzed on a broad scale by competitive from marketplace and from (p. 8). Recognizing importance of establishing a body to identify and promote empirically supported psychotherapeutic treatments, Division of Clinical Psychology (Division 12) of American Psychological Association assembled a Task Force to accomplish goal.5 Based upon a specific review process, a list of empirically supported treatments was identified.5 The Task Force report acknowledged that list is never final, and must be maintained and updated on a regular basis to include new data as they emerge (in fact, recent list represents third update). During a time of sweeping healthcare changes, list represents a crucial step in identification and promotion of proven-effective psychotherapies, with overall mission of making these treatments more widely available.6 Several authors have raised important concerns and criticisms7-9 regarding identification of empirically supported therapies. fact, I agree that there are difficulties and risks in establishing psychotherapy guidelines-or any treatment guidelines for that matter.lo However, I strongly disagree with premise that development of evidence-based psychotherapy guidelines is . . self-destructive behavior, consequences of which will degrade our calling far worse than anything government or managed costs corporations will ever conceive8 (p. 136). To contrary, it is my opinion that failure to develop treatment guidelines will result in psychotherapists being our own worst enemy.3 Unfortunately, to date, psychotherapists have not taken an active role in promulgating guidelines. Recognizing importance of treatment guidelines, organizations, such as American Psychiatric Association, have accelerated development process. Indeed, Dr. Harold Pincus,lo who has been a member of a committee overseeing development of American Psychiatric Associations Guidelines has noted: In absence of standards, what is cheapest is best.... Evidence-based guidelines developed by professional organizations assist clinicians in asserting professional values in face of economic pressures (p. 45). From my vantage point, question is not whether or not we should develop treatment guidelines whenever possible, but instead, have we already missed boat? The danger in not creating our own guidelines is obvious from Persons, Thase, and Crits-Christoph's11 analysis of AHCPR12 and American Psychiatric Association report.13 Essentially, they conclude that both guidelines understate value of psychotherapy and, in particular, American Psychiatric Association's Guidelines does not reflect a balanced assessment of available empirical evidence supporting cognitive, behavioral, brief psychodynamic, and group psychotherapy. Clearly, having other groups (i.e., those not primarily involved in providing and evaluating psychotherapy) construct guidelines is not in psychotherapists' best interest. Of course, there are risks and drawbacks in developing guidelines. …

Polygraphic analysis of eating on electrogastrography (EGG), heart rate variability, and serum human-pancreatic polypeptide levels: [formula omitted], T. Mitsuma, M. Sakakibara. Fourth Dept. of Internal Medicine, Aichi Medical University, Aichi, 480-11 Japan, and Division of Clinical Psychology, Tokai Central Hospital, Kakamigahara, 504, Japan

Polygraphic analysis of eating on electrogastrography (EGG), heart rate variability, and serum human-pancreatic polypeptide levels: [formula omitted], T. Mitsuma, M. Sakakibara. Fourth Dept. of Internal Medicine, Aichi Medical University, Aichi, 480-11 Japan, and Division of Clinical Psychology, Tokai Central Hospital, Kakamigahara, 504, Japan

Division of Clinical Psychology - Scottish Branch

Division of Clinical Psychology - Scottish Branch

To Petition to Join APA as a Section of Division 12, the Division of Clinical Psychology

To Petition to Join APA as a Section of Division 12, the Division of Clinical Psychology