Treatment development: can we find a better way?
Abstract
The present paper argues that traditional approaches to treatment development, including a technological approach, a stage model, and existing inductive approaches such as functional analysis are inadequate in various ways. Treatment developing needs to focus more on theoretical development, practicality, and the fit with clients and practitioners. We argue that progress requires greater philosophical clarity, and steps to ensure a connection between philosophy of science assumptions and an analytic agenda which fits naturally with applied psychology. Theoretical progress requires distinguishing between clinical and basic models and harmonizing their relationship, and more focus on the manipulable context of action. Applied psychology needs to join in a common cause with basic psychology in domains of mutual interest, and develop basic analyses and mid-level terms that can be both scientifically progressive and clinically useful. Issues of practicality, capacity for dissemination, and public health impact need to be considered at the beginning and throughout treatment development. Issues of effectiveness, change processes, mediation, moderation, training, active components, and similar issues should be part of the evaluation system from the beginning. It is time to create a more coherent approach to treatment innovation.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Single-case experimental design is recommended for examination of new treatments.
“Single-case experimental design is recommended for examination of new treatments (Hayes et al., 2013).”
From Feasibility and preliminary outcomes of compassion-focused acceptance and commitment therapy delivered via telehealth in a community behavioral health clinic (2025) · cites this paper as Hayes et al., 2013
A quality assessment tool was developed based on the recommendations of Hayes et al.
“Based on the recommendations of Hayes et al. [40], a quality assessment tool was developed.”
From Psychological Treatment of Exhaustion Due to Persistent Non-Traumatic Stress: A Scoping Review. (2024) · cites this paper as Hayes et al. [40]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 125 · Cited by 75
- Authors
- Hayes, S. C., Long, D. M., Levin, M. E., & Follette, W. C.
- Affiliations
- University of Nevada, Reno (US)
- Corresponding author
- Hayes, Steven C.
- Venue
- Clinical Psychology Review
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2013-11
- Volume
- 33
- Issue
- 7
- Pages
- 870-882
- ISSN
- 0272-7358 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2074463726
- Cited by
- 75
- References
- 125
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 1
- FWCI
- 0.93
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Clinical Psychology Review (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychotherapy Techniques and Applications
- Social Sciences › Psychology › General Psychology › Academic and Historical Perspectives in Psychology
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
- Keywords
- treatment development, treatment innovation, theory development, philosophy of science, functional analysis, applied psychology, dissemination, public health impact, treatment evaluation, mediating and moderating effects, active components, practitioner training, change processes
- MeSH terms
- Mental Disorders, Humans, Models, Psychological, Philosophy, Medical, Psychology, Applied, Psychology, Clinical, Psychotherapy, Evidence-Based Practice
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review