Skip to main content icon/video/no-internet

Professional practice based on reliable and valid empirical findings of effectiveness—empirically based professional practice (EBPP)—has increasingly influenced the work of mental health practitioners over the past two decades. The appeal of EBPP is based on the conviction that using evidence-based assessments and treatments in preference to those without empirical support makes sense, because EBPPs have been compared systematically to alternative treatments by appropriate and powerful methods and, for that reason, should provide practitioners assurance of superior efficacy.

Many believe that medical practice has long been heavily influenced by the most current available scientific data. However, that assumption may not be valid. The roots of evidence-based medical practice (EBMP) are shorter than many may have thought: They are usually traced to a statement published in the Journal of the American Medical Association by a group of physicians led by a Canadian internist that advocated evidence-based medical practice over medicine as an art. The article led to a debate about power, ethics, and responsibility in medicine that appears to have radically altered healthcare practices. Although this change has led physicians away from intuition (the art in medicine) toward empirical data (the science in medicine), divisions among physicians over the value of intuition continue. Some have said that the EBMP position is unequivocal: There are reliable, validated data, and then there are data that aren't reliable and validated, and the difference between the two is what is important.

Parallels between the nature of and reactions to evidence-based medical practice and evidence-based mental health practice are clear. What advocates for evidence-based treatments in psychology, psychiatry, and social work hear from their critics is strikingly similar to what those who support evidence-based medical practices hear from their critics, as are the efforts of advocates for evidence-based mental health practice and advocates for evidence-based medicine to counter those criticisms with data.

History of Concern for Evidence of Efficacy in Professional Psychology

The issue of the evidence base of clinical practice in psychology has a lengthy and important history that dates back more than 60 years to the period of explosive growth of professional psychology during and after World War II that transformed it from a small, primarily academic discipline to one of the core mental health professions. As long ago as 1942, social psychologist Theodore Sarbin predicted, on the basis of some of his own data, that actuarial prediction methods (“science”) would ultimately be able to outperform humans (“art”) along a variety of judgment dimensions. In 1954, Paul Meehl, who was to become one of the towering figures in clinical psychology over the next several decades, published a book that summarized his data confirming the consistent superiority of statistical prediction (“science”) over clinical prediction (“art”). Although advocates for art rather than science in clinical and counseling psychology since then have been heard from, support from behavioral scientists for the positions Sarbin and Meehl took so long ago on this issue has been strong and consistent.

Notwithstanding opposition to evidence-based practice by some mental health professionals, increasing efforts are being expended to require mental health practitioners to follow practice guidelines, and practice guidelines are becoming more prescriptive. Managed care organizations, third-party reimbursers, and state and federal agencies have come increasingly to expect psychologists, psychiatrists, and social workers whenever possible to employ practices with empirical support. As a consequence, many psychology and social work students and psychiatric residents receive training that emphasizes these practices as mandated by their professions. Practice guidelines incorporating evidence-based treatments have been put forth by the American Psychological Association and the American Psychiatric Association as well as by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs and the U.S. Agency for Health Care Policy and Research. And more and more patients have come to expect their therapists to know and use empirically supported treatments whenever possible.

...

  • Loading...
locked icon

Sign in to access this content

Get a 30 day FREE TRIAL

  • Watch videos from a variety of sources bringing classroom topics to life
  • Read modern, diverse business cases
  • Explore hundreds of books and reference titles

Sage Recommends

We found other relevant content for you on other Sage platforms.

Loading