Evidence-Based Practices in Mental Health: Debate and Dialogue on the Fundamental Questions [Paperback]

Larry E. Beautler (Author), John C. Norcross (Editor), Larry E. Beutler (Editor)

Book Description

ISBN-10: 1591473101 | ISBN-13: 978-1591473107 | Publication Date: August 2005 | Edition: 1

Addresses fundamental questions in the debate on evidence-based practices (EBPs) such as What qualifies as evidence? What qualifies as research on which to judge effective practice? Are research patients and clinical trials representative of clinical practice? Are evidence-based treatments readily transportable to clinical practice? and others. Positions are argued with passion and intelligence. Each question-focused chapter concludes with a dialogue among the contributors in which they emphasize their points of agreement and disagreement. The debate, interchange, and dialogue format makes this an ideal tool for teaching and discussion. For mental health practitioners, trainers, and graduate

Product Details

• Paperback: 435 pages
• Publisher: American Psychological Association (APA); 1 edition (August 2005)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 1591473101
• ISBN-13: 978-1591473107
• Product Dimensions: 10.1 x 7.1 x 1 inches
• Shipping Weight: 1.7 pounds (View shipping rates and policies)
• Average Customer Review: 4.8 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (4 customer reviews)
• Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #54,444 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)

More About the Author

Discover books, learn about writers, read author blogs, and more.

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

4 of 4 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars A Crucial Book for Psychotherapists...., March 1, 2010

By 

David C. Young "David C. Young, LCSW" (Colorado Springs, CO USA) - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)   

Amazon Verified Purchase

This review is from: Evidence-Based Practices in Mental Health: Debate and Dialogue on the Fundamental Questions (Paperback)

"Few topics in mental health are as incendiary, consequential, and timely as evidence-based practices. [Note: "practices", not "treatments"] Yet, this multifaceted and complex topic has been reduced to simplistic and polarized arguments; regrettably, more heat than light has been shed on the topic."
John C. Norcross, Larry E. Beutler, Ronald F. Levant, eds., "Preface",

"Evidence-Based Practices in Mental Health" is THE overview of Psychology's War: the war over what is & isn't effective, and so what should & shouldn't be done in psychotherapy. The three editors, each of whom come from a different major army in what they call the "Culture Wars of EBPs [Evidence-Based Practices]", have enlisted over 40 researchers/clinicians to respond. In areas I know, the editors have certainly picked the best researchers/clinicians. As the editors say,

"Mental health professionals have become polarized on EBPs and separated into rival camps, with differing language systems and conflicting values."

And that's putting it very mildly.

"Evidence-Based Practices" presents quite-diverse positions on nine crucial questions:
What qualifies as evidence of effective practice?
What qualifies as research on which to judge effective practice?
Does manualization improve therapy outcomes?
Are research patients and clinical trials representative of clinical practice?
What should be validated? (Or what aspect of psychotherapy should we be researching, e.g., a technique, a relationship quality, a client characteristic, etc.?)
What else materially influences what is represented and published as evidence?
Do therapies designated as "empirically supported treatments" for specific disorders produce outcomes superior to non-"empirically supported treatment" therapies?
How well do both "evidence-based practices" and "treatment as usual" satisfactorily address the various dimensions of diversity?
Are efficacious laboratory-validated treatments readily transportable to clinical practice?

For each question, experts stake out their differing positions. For example, on "What should be validated?", leading researchers/clinicians take five different positions: treatment method, psychotherapist, therapy relationship, active client & principles of change. On "What qualifies as research on which to judge effective practice?, researchers/clinicians explain & defend six positions: case studies, single-participant design research, qualitative research, change process research, effectiveness research and randomized clinical trials.

After all the different answers to a question, each researcher/clinician is asked a series of questions about that topic: "Dialogue: Convergence and Contention". For example, in the 5-positioned response to "What should be validated?", three "misconceptions" about Empirically-Supported Treatments (ESTs) were presented for five different responses: "EST advocates ignore contributions of the psychotherapist", "EST advocates hold that the therapeutic relationship is not important" and "EST advocates hold that clients are passive recipients of treatments".

Reading all the answers to each question gives a clear, vivid summary of this war's key aspects. More than urgent, at times, these conflicts, these different positions can be painful & fear-provoking. But always, I find, they're important, even vital to know.

The three editors are self-proclaimed believers in both science & clinical practice, and they say they're all biased toward "informed pluralism". So their shared goal is to find peaceful & productive coexistences & interactions between these different, highly conflicted understandings & approaches:

"Mental health professionals comprise a nation of differences. Those differences do not necessarily make us weak; differences can serve as sources of creativity, strength, and progress if constructively harnessed. In the view of Feyerabend, a philosopher of science, the interplay between tenacity and proliferation is an essential feature in the development of science. It is not the puzzle-solving activity that is responsible for the growth in the development of science, but the active interplay of various tenaciously held views. In the words of Dante (Paradisio, Canto VI), "Of diverse voices is sweet music made." But diverse voices can also sound like nails on a blackboard if they are dissynchronous and out of harmony."

As a clinician working with difficult & complex, multi-problemed clients & families, I absolutely agree. Yet in reading this book, while it was extremely valuable & informative, I found that the editors goal of co-existence and pluralism, sadly, often seemed "a custom more honour'd in the breach than the observance."

(Yes, I know I'm misusing that Hamlet quotation.)

Still, for my fellow clinicians, I strongly recommend this book. You'll be a much wiser consumer of research & practices, and you'll be much more aware of the full range of needed possibilities.

Disclosure: I was first trained by several students -psychotherapists & researchers - who studied and worked with Carl Rogers. Rogers more-or-less began systematic research into the effectiveness of psychotherapy. Obviously, his focus was investigating the client/therapist relationship. Since that time, a quarter century ago, I've become a family therapist, and I also use many cognitive-behavioral therapies & DSM diagnoses. Yet I've always thought of myself as, foundationally, a client-centered family therapist - less in what I do than in how I do it.

Evidence-supported treatments (ESTs) currently dominate high-powered academic psychology, which gets most of the research funding. More, ESTs have also won the public-relations war hands-down. Yes, I was trained on client-centered research & the primacy of the client/therapist relationship. But after years of reading little else but EST research & practice, I discovered that I'd slipped, clinically, in the non-EST's which, research strongly suggests, are at least if not more important & effective than specific treatments for specific diagnoses. (See,especially, the 2nd edition (2010), The Heart and Soul of Change: Delivering What Works in Therapy and the earlier, Psychotherapy Relationships that Work: Therapist Contributions and Responsiveness to Patients.) I'd become steadily more skillful in diagnosis & treatment procedures. But in turning away from non-EST research and its clinical implications, I had not kept up with important research advances in areas such as eliciting & incorporating client skills, getting feedback on the quality of my client/therapist relationship, qualities to develop as the therapist, and more.

Is "Evidence-Based Practices" heavy into statistics? No, at least not for me. And my statistics training - never my strongest suit - is several decades past. These summaries are clearly written with the general mental health audience in mind, though for psychologists in particular. This means that some understanding of basic research terms is helpful. But even if you've forgotten everything from your graduate research class, a dictionary should suffice to refresh your memory, at least enough to read these summaries.

As clinicians, all this research-focus may seem far from our central concern: becoming better at helping clients heal. But in my experience, "Evidence-Based Practices in Mental Health" turned out to be highly relevant in pointing out what I and, more importantly, what my clients most needed. I believe you'll find "Evidence-Based Practices" an important corrective, and a guide back to a more balanced, more truly scientific and effective approach to psychotherapy.

5 of 6 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars Evidence-Based Practices In Mental Health, December 21, 2008

By 

J. Plank "jplank" (Omaha, NE) - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)   

Amazon Verified Purchase

This review is from: Evidence-Based Practices in Mental Health: Debate and Dialogue on the Fundamental Questions (Paperback)

A very interesting collection of articles regarding the growing call for accountability in the mental health profession. Pick any therapeutical approach and there will be accompanying research (unfortunately weak in empirical data and procedure) demonstrating its effectiveness as opposed to no counseling at all. One wonders how effective any research can really be when one considers that counseling is meant to address the unique and individual needs and experiences of the client. What is driving this debate? Accountability to mental health providors is certainly desirable in that it makes the profession more credible, but does it interfere or limit meeting the client's appropriate needs? If counselors are required to demonstrate effective research about their methods of treatment,it is clear that the same accountability must be made for the numerous prescriptive drugs advertised across the media. Every counselor knows that evidenced-based research in the prescriptive drug field is not much better than what is found in our own field. It is clear that the best recoveries occur in an atmosphere that combines therapy with mental health drugs. Yet, Reed's question remains in my mind, "Does every counselor have to be a researcher?"

0 of 2 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars Clean and new, still in shrink wrap, June 7, 2009

By 

Priscilla L. Elliott "AspiringTruth" (Texas) - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)   

This review is from: Evidence-Based Practices in Mental Health: Debate and Dialogue on the Fundamental Questions (Paperback)

Clean and new, still in shrink wrap. The book is a collection of papers from various experts, well organized, and includes occasional discussions to tie debates together for an objective look at the issues in case you were unable to imply them. Some experts write better than others, but just as you are getting bored with one writing style, it's over and someone else picks up. This is the most interesting and entertaining book on research and methods that I have ever read (not a high bar, but the best none the less).