So I think students need to understand the value of treatment models within a developmental context and an understanding of the general aspects that models bring to the table.

The next larger context is the alliance. In an important way, the alliance is dependent on the delivery of some particular treatment—a framework for understanding and solving the problem. The alliance cannot happen without technique. If technique fails to engage the client in purposive work, it is not working properly and a change is needed. Technique is an activity—the alliance is a way to characterize that activity; the alliance is the purpose of the activity. Although it is possible for a strong relationship to develop, there can be no agreement about the tasks of therapy, a critical aspect of the alliance, without some discussion and negotiation of what “treatment” will be used—be it some specific approach, the client’s own ideas and cultural preferences, or some unique blend.

The issue of resonance and the agreement about tasks—finding a framework for therapy that both the therapist and the client can believe in—is why it makes a lot of sense to ask clients about their ideas about how to proceed, or at the very least getting client approval of any intervention plan. Not surprisingly, Frank and Frank (1991) said it best: “Ideally, therapists should select for each patient the therapy that accords, or can be brought to accord, with the patient’s personal characteristics and view of the problem’’ (p. xv). But Frank was not the first and in fact the idea of matching client preferences and worldview goes back to Paul Hoch, Milton Erickson, and the MRI. Traditionally, such a process has not been the case—the search has been for interventions that promote change by validating the therapist’s favored theory. Serving the alliance requires taking a different angle—the search for ideas that promote change by validating the client’s view of what is helpful—or what I have called, based on the work of Erickson and the MRI, the client’s theory of change (Duncan et al., 1992; Duncan & Moynihan, 1994). Here is an article about the client’s theory of change:

Finally, the third context is regarding evidence based treatment itself and the difference between evidence based treatments and evidence based practice as defined by APA. Jeff Reese and I recently wrote a chapter about this and I will post it after it is published. They are two fundamentally different approaches to defining and disseminating evidence (Littell, 2010; see her chapter in Heart and Soul of Change)—one that seeks to improve clinical practice via the dissemination of treatments meeting a minimum standard of empirical support (EBT) and another that describes a process of research application to practice that includes clinical judgment and client preferences (EBP). That psychotherapists might possess the psychological equivalent of a “pill” for emotional distress resonates strongly with many, and is nothing if not seductive as it teases the desire to be as helpful as possible to clients. A treatment for a specific “disorder,” from this perspective, is like a silver bullet, potent and transferable from research setting to clinical practice. Any therapist need only load the silver bullet into any psychotherapy revolver and shoot the psychic werewolf stalking the client. This is the essence of an EBT approach, characterized by Division 12, depicting confidence in the available evidence and appealing to those who believe that more structure and consistency and less clinician judgment is needed to bring about positive outcomes in mental health and substance abuse services. On the other hand, EBP reflects the understanding that scientific evidence is tentative and that outcome is dependent not only on applying the various types of empirical research but also on the participants. EBP appeals to those who value clinician autonomy and individualized treatment decisions based on unique presentations of clients. The APA Task Force definition on EBP exemplifies this approach to the evidence: “the integration of the best available research with clinical expertise in the context of patient [sic] characteristics, culture, and preferences” (APA Task Force 2006, p. 273).
The first part, “the integration of the best available research,” includes the consideration of EBTs without privileging them, as well as the wide range of findings regarding the alliance and other common factors. Next, “with clinical expertise,” in contrast to the EBT mentality of the therapist as an interchangeable part, brings the therapist into the equation—highlighting what therapists bring is consistent with emerging research about the importance of clinician variability to outcome. Moreover, the Task Force submitted: “Clinical expertise also entails the monitoring of patient progress…” (APA, 2006, p. 276–277). Finally, “in the context of patient characteristics, culture, and preferences” rightfully emphasizes what the client brings to the therapeutic stage as well as the acceptability of any intervention to the client’s expectations, how well any model or technique resonates. In short, EBP accommodates the common factors, reinforces the importance of the therapist and client, and includes client feedback as a necessary component.

So if these larger contexts of understanding EBTs are included, I believe that EBTs should be taught in graduate training programs. Graduate training should call for a more sophisticated and empirically informed clinician who chooses from a variety of orientations and methods to best fit client preferences and cultural values. Although there has not been convincing evidence for differential efficacy among approaches, there is indeed differential effectiveness for the client in the room now—therapists need expertise in a broad range of intervention options, including evidence based treatments, but must remember that the proof of the pudding is in the taste.

Join the CDOI community
Join the Heroic Agencies List
Join the Mailing List
Become a CDOI Member
List Yourself as a CDOI Provider

Speaking of research, there are several research projects that are in process: an RCT with returning veterans with PTSD related problems and substance abuse concerns is in the writing phase; an RCT with children with behavioral problems in the schools is in its second year of data collection; a comparison trial of residential treatment services with and without CDOI for clients with the “SMI” moniker is underway; an RCT with prescribers of psychotropic meds is in the planning stages; and a component study addressing why the feedback intervention works is also in the planning stages. I’ll keep you informed of the progress.

Along the lines of Sami Timimi’s “No More Psychiatric Labels” campaign to abolish diagnostic systems like ICD and DSM (Check it out at http://www.criticalpsychiatry.net/?p=527  Support the campaign at http://www.causes.com/causes/615071-no-more-psychiatric-labels/about), another project is underway that calls attention to the many pitfalls of the psychiatric diagnosis. I just signed their petition. Check it out: “Open Letter to the DSM-5″
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/dsm5/?utm_medium=email&utm_source=system&utm_campaign=Send%2Bto%2BFriend

I really think this is an important cause, extremely well articulated, and I’d like to encourage you to add your signature, too. It’s free and takes just a few seconds of your time.

And, I want to call your attention to the Training of Trainers Conference in West Palm Beach, Florida from January 30 to February 3, 2012. There are still a few spots left so don’t miss out on this intense CDOI/PCOMS immersion as well as the fun and sun. I am convinced that the difference between successful and unsuccessful agency implementation boils down to having someone on site that knows the ins and outs of not only CDOI, but also the nuts and bolts of making it happen on an organizational level. Hope to see you there.

Finally, join me for this month’s webinar on ensuring data integrity and therapist understanding on November 23rd at 1PM Central. Join the member site to watch.

Join the CDOI community
Join the Heroic Agencies List
Join the Mailing List
Become a CDOI Member
List Yourself as a CDOI Provider

On the heels of the American Psychiatric Association’s development of practice guidelines in 1993, to ensure their continued viability in the market, psychologists rushed to offer magic bullets to counter psychiatry’s magic pills—to establish empirically supported treatments (EST). With all good intentions, the task force of Division 12 (Task Force on Promotion and Dissemination of Psychological Procedures, 1995) reviewed available research and catalogued treatments of choice for specific diagnoses based on their demonstrated efficacy in two RCTs. On one hand, the Division 12 Task Force effectively increased recognition of the efficacy of psychological intervention among the public, policymakers, and training programs; on the other hand, it simultaneously promulgated gross misinterpretations—that ESTs have proven superiority over other approaches, and therefore, should be mandated and exclusively reimbursed. Unfortunately, many now believe, to paraphrase Orwell, that some therapies are more equal than others.

The notion, however, that any approach is better than another is indefensible in light of the evidence covered extensively throughout The Heart and Soul of Change that support the outcome equivalence of the different models (the “dodo verdict”) as well as the relative influence of other factors than model and technique. I encourage you to dig a little deeper and bolster your ability to respectfully counter statements that suggest mandates for practice. Littell’s (2010) scathing commentary of ESTs in The Heart and Soul of Change is a good place to start. Littell provides a useful template for understanding the varied ways that findings can be distorted and evidence constructed from underwhelming results.

Like understanding anything else, there is a language involved here and it takes a bit of wading through tedious material. But it is worth it if you desire to counter mandates for specific approaches and promote the freedom for therapists to practice as they see fit according to client preferences and benefit. Our necessary pluralism, the theoretical breadth so important to resonating with clients and accentuating our development, is at stake, as well as our identity—ESTs suggest a therapist identity based on technical acumen in administering manualized, cookie cutter interventions (Duncan & Miller, 2006).

Efficacy over placebo, sham, or no treatment is not efficacy over other approaches, or what is called differential efficacy. In the minority of studies that claim superiority over treatment as usual (TAU) or another approach, you need only to ask one question of the investigation (see Duncan et al., 2004 and Sparks & Duncan, 2010 for a full discussion and examples): Is it a fair contest? Is the study a comparison of two valid approaches intended to be therapeutic administered in equal amounts by therapists who equally believe in what they are doing and who are equally supported to do it—are the therapists from the same pool with equal caseloads or is the experimental group specially selected, trained, and supervised by the researcher/founder of the approach, and have reduced caseloads?

I have never seen an advantage of any approach over another (or TAU) that wasn’t a lopsided contest that had its winner predetermined. Consider Trauma Focused (TF)-CBT, an approach to child sexual abuse that is getting a lot of press as the preferred approach that should be implemented across the board. Let’s look at their “definitive study:” Cohen, J. A., Deblinger, E., Mannarino, A. P., & Steer, R. A. (2004). A multisite, randomized controlled trial for children with sexual abuse-related PTSD symptoms. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 43(4), 393-402.

SSDD all the way! It is always the same when you scratch below the surface of superiority claims—they just don’t hold up to critical scrutiny. First let me say that there is nothing wrong with TF-CBT. It has good ideas and good possibilities, and is surely helpful for some kids and parents. I just wish they would present it that way; i.e., if you work with kids and families where abuse and trauma are involved, you might consider adding these ideas and interventions to your repertoire—they probably will make some sense to some of your clients. But, of course, that is not what they say and instead they claim superiority and folks get the crazy idea that it should be mandated or practiced exclusively.

As always, you gotta consider whether or not it is a fair contest or one in which the winner is pre-determined by the design (imagine the porpoise and the cow in a swimming contest), the pet approach of the researcher pitted against a less than equal opponent. Child Centered Treatment (CCT), the comparison treatment in this study, is not a fair comparison—it is a sham treatment. Therapists did not see the kids and parents together at all, whereas the TF-CBT therapists saw kids and parents together 3 times out of the 12 possible sessions. It just is not reasonable care of a kid who has been sexually abused without meeting with both the child and parent (or caring adult) together to make sense of what has happened. That’s one thing, and then there is the real kicker: Therapists in the CCT condition did not provide advice or suggestions to kids or parents. This is not a real treatment. In the face of such serious concerns, even the most died in the wool “client centered” therapist would address client requests for suggestions and guidance.

Given this mock therapy, one might also suspect that the therapists likely believed that the TF-CBT offered some advantages over CCT given there was at least some structure and ideas offered to these struggling families. Enter allegiance factors. Therapists served as their own controls (performed both TF-CBT and CCT) and were monitored for fidelity, or other words to ensure they didn’t offer guidance (beyond processing feelings and finding client solutions) in the CCT condition. It doesn’t say who provided the “intensive supervision” but that probably means it was the researchers.

So given that it was an unfair comparison of an active treatment model to one unlikely to ever happen in the real world, and given the therapists in the study could hardly help but like to offer some guidance to clients when asked and therefore likely were more committed to TF-CBT, the results are particularly underwhelming. First off, there was a main effect for both conditions. Both treatments worked, which is a real testament to client factors given the CCT didn’t provide any structure or practical intervention. There were 16 measures for the kids and 4 for the caregivers. 3 of the 16 were clinician rated measures (diagnostic interview by folks trained by the researchers). Of the 16, 8 found a significant advantage for TF-CBT. But 3 of those were the from the clinician’s point of view. Only 5 of 13 client rated measures found an advantage for TF-CBT. All 4 of the adult measures found an advantage for TF-CBT. An inspection of the results table reveals that many of the “significant” findings arise from pretty small differences in the means at post-treatment, challenging at least some of the clinical significance of the findings. Finally, it seems that the measures chosen were reactive, or selected to reflect the very things that TF-CBT directly address while the comparison treatment does not address these aspects at all.

In summary, as always you have to ask yourself when superiority is claimed, “as compared to what?” This is study does not provide compelling evidence that TF-CBT is superior to anything else but rather that TF-CBT has demonstrated that it is a viable way to approach children and families who have suffered the trauma of sexual abuse. Regarding superiority claims, the TF in TF-CBT means totally false!

A summary of the problems often found in such claims can be found at http://heartandsoulofchange.com/resources/handouts/

Thankfully, there is a sanctioned argument to help efforts to rescind mandates for particular approaches. In the face of growing criticism, 2005 APA President Ronald Levant appointed the Presidential Task Force on Evidence-Based Practice (hereafter Task Force). The Task Force defined evidenced based practice (EBP) as “the integration of the best available research with clinical expertise in the context of patient (sic) characteristics, culture, and preferences (Task Force 2006, p. 273). This definition transcends the “demonstrated efficacy in two RCTs” mentality of ESTs and finally makes common clinical sense.

The Task Force also said:
The application of research evidence to a given patient always involves probabilistic inferences. Therefore, ongoing monitoring of patient progress and adjustment of treatment as needed are essential (Task Force, 2006, p. 280).

Proponents from both sides of the common v. specific factors aisle recognized that outcome is not guaranteed regardless of evidentiary support of a given technique or the expertise of the therapist (Anker et al., 2009). Practice based evidence must become routine. The new definition supports an identity of plurality, essential attention to client preferences, a focus on therapist expertise, and the importance of feedback.

Bottom Line: There is nothing wrong with ESTs or evidence based practice. Challenge statements, however, that use evidence based practice to justify mandates, exclusive reimbursement, or dictates about “the” way to address client problems. Know about the dodo verdict and unfair contests in research. Educate others about APA’s definition and the importance of measuring the client’s response to any delivered treatment—advocate for practice based evidence as an evidence based practice.

Next Blog: The Recovery Revolution