1468-2850/asset/olbannerleft.gif?v=1&s=80262841c8d29e6321bada5c655bed815ae54d05)
1468-2850/asset/olbannercenter.gif?v=1&s=f7d39ef56c768973897ae05cb5ee2c508e3e4347)
Establishing Specificity in Psychotherapy Scientifically: Design and Evidence Issues
Article first published online: 11 MAY 2006
DOI: 10.1093/clipsy.bpi025
1468-2850/asset/cover.gif?v=1&s=bc0699d8ae7951bf89d243fd116c6e191113e45b "Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice")
Additional Information
How to Cite
Wampold, B. E. (2005), Establishing Specificity in Psychotherapy Scientifically: Design and Evidence Issues. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 12: 194–197. doi: 10.1093/clipsy.bpi025
Publication History
- Issue published online: 11 MAY 2006
- Article first published online: 11 MAY 2006
- Received February 23, 2005; accepted March 15, 2005.
- Abstract
- Article
- References
- Cited By
Keywords:
- common factors;
- specificity;
- uniform efficacy;
- alliance
Issues related to establishing specificity in psychotherapy are discussed. It is suggested that the null hypothesis that the specific ingredients are responsible for the benefits of psychotherapy should not be rejected unless the evidence is sufficiently inconsistent with the null hypothesis. However, generally or for specific disorders, the uniform efficacy of psychotherapeutic treatments with adults does not provide any evidence that the null hypothesis is false. As well, the relationship of the alliance and outcomes does not provide any evidence against the null and indeed provides evidence for a common-factor model of psychotherapy with adults. Additional evidence that is contrary to a specificity hypothesis is summarized.