Cited by 3,067Psychotherapy Techniques and ApplicationsMeta-analysis and systematic reviewsPsychology Research and Bibliometrics

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 100 of the 100 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Defining empirically supported therapies.

Chambless, Dianne L., Hollon, Steven D.·1998·Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology

Abstract

A scheme is proposed for determining when a psychological treatment for a specific problem or disorder may be considered to be established in efficacy or to be possibly efficacious.The importance of independent replication before a treatment is established in efficacy is emphasized, and a number of factors are elaborated that should be weighed in evaluating whether studies supporting a treatment's efficacy are sound.It is suggested that, in evaluating the benefits of a given treatment, the greatest weight should be given to efficacy trials but that these trials should be followed by research on effectiveness in clinical settings and with various populations and by cost-effectiveness research.In this special section, the authors of review articles have been asked to evaluate the psychological treatment research literature in their area of expertise to identify empirically supported treatments' (ESTs).Briefly, we define ESTs as clearly specified psychological treatments shown to be efficacious in controlled research with a delineated population.Thus, following Kiesler (1966), we suggest that practitioners and researchers will profit from knowing which treatments are effective for which clients or patients.That psychological treatments (undefined) benefit the majority of clients or patients (undefined) is already well established (see, e.g., M. L. Smith & Glass, 1977).Furthermore, our particular emphasis is on the effects of the treatments as independent variables.This is not to deny the importance of other factors such as the therapeutic alliance, as well as client and patient variables that affect the process and outcome of psychological therapies (see, e.g.,

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/0022-006x.66.1.7

Cites

100 of 100 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Citations

Cites

Show all 93 references

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 501–600 of 1,038

Metadata

Authors
Chambless, D. L., & Hollon, S. D.
Affiliations
  • University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (US)
  • Vanderbilt University (US)
Venue
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology
Published
1998
Volume
66
Issue
1
Pages
7-18
ISSN
  • 0022-006X (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-2117
OpenAlex
W2119475075
Cited by
3,067
References
93
Citations by year
2026: 41 · 2025: 67 · 2024: 67 · 2023: 76 · 2022: 79 · 2021: 110 · 2020: 116 · 2019: 102 · 2018: 110 · 2017: 125 · 2016: 114 · 2015: 144 · 2014: 157 · 2013: 168 · 2012: 185
FWCI
93.95
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychotherapy Techniques and Applications
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Psychology Research and Bibliometrics
Keywords
empirically supported treatments, treatment efficacy, replication, effectiveness research, cost-effectiveness, psychological intervention, evidence-based practice
MeSH terms
Mental Disorders, Cost-Benefit Analysis, Humans, Patient Compliance, Psychotherapy, Empiricism

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