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.
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
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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?
In the citing paper
“The efficacy of this treatment is supported by The Task Force Report on Empirically Supported Treatments (ESTs; Chambless & Hollon, 1998) and the 12th Division of the APA.”
From Enhancing In Vivo Exposure in the Treatment of Panic Disorder and Agoraphobia Using Location-Based Technologies: A Case Study (2020) · cites this paper as Chambless & Hollon, 1998
In the citing paper
“Furthermore, the American Psychological Association has recognized ACT as an evidence-based therapy to promote psychological (eg, depressive symptoms) and physical (eg, chronic pain) health.29”
From Acceptance and Commitment Therapy Among Informal Caregivers of People With Chronic Health Conditions: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (2023) · cites this paper as [29]
In the citing paper
“Following MBCT training, participants exhibit improved self-reported mindfulness (43–50), reduced rumination (43, 45–48, 51–53) and worry (43, 47, 53), improved meta-awareness (52, 54, 55), increased self-compassion (56, 57), and reduced emotional reactivity (58).”
From Mindfulness-Based Interventions in Psychiatry (2018) · cites this paper as [44]
In the citing paper
“Research has largely supported this notion, and shown that these processes are central components and active ingredients of MBCT.”
From Mindfulness-Based Interventions in Psychiatry (2018) · cites this paper as [44]
In the citing paper
“Four recent meta-analyses have addressed the long-term outcome of CBT for anxiety-related disorders, and they generally indicate a medium symptomreductionupto2yearsfollowing treatment completion.”
From Long-term Outcomes of Cognitive Behavioral Therapy for Anxiety-Related Disorders: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis (2020) · cites this paper as [19]
In the citing paper
“Strengths of this meta-analysis are the inclusion of more comparison groups, which yielded more studies than previous meta-analyses, 18-21”
From Long-term Outcomes of Cognitive Behavioral Therapy for Anxiety-Related Disorders: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis (2020) · cites this paper as [19]
Citations
Cites
Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders
Williams, J. B. W., & First, M. B. (2013) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/acrefore/9780199975839.013.104 · Cited by 109,845
Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences
Muller, K. E., & Cohen, J. (1989) · Technometrics · doi:10.2307/1270020 · Cited by 99,603
Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences
Cohen, J. (1990) · Computers Environment and Urban Systems · doi:10.1016/0198-9715(90)90050-4 · Cited by 65,417
Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences (2nd ed.).
Lachenbruch, P. A., & Cohen, J. (1989) · Journal of the American Statistical Association · doi:10.2307/2290095 · Cited by 37,421
Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders
American Psychiatric Association (2022) · doi:10.1176/appi.books.9780890425787 · Cited by 23,476
Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders
(2012) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/springerreference_121117 · Cited by 20,772
(1963) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 15,085
Construct validity in psychological tests.
Cronbach, L. J., & Meehl, P. E. (1955) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/h0040957 · Cited by 11,195
Jacobson, N. S., & Truax, P. (1991) · Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-006x.59.1.12 · Cited by 7,770
Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 3rd ed
Cooper, A. M., & Michels, R. (1981) · American Journal of Psychiatry · doi:10.1176/ajp.138.1.128 · Cited by 7,419
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Mindfulness training as a clinical intervention: a conceptual and empirical review
Baer, R. A. (2003) · Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice · doi:10.1093/clipsy.bpg015 · Cited by 4,577
“Randomized clinical trials are needed to clarify whether observed effects are due to mindfulness training or to confounding factors such as placebo effects or passage of time (Chambless & Hollon, 1998).”
BackgroundHow stigma interferes with mental health care.
Corrigan, P. (2004) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/0003-066x.59.7.614 · Cited by 3,648
The Use of Single-Subject Research to Identify Evidence-Based Practice in Special Education
Horner, R. H., Carr, E. G., Halle, J., McGee, G., Odom, S., & Wolery, M. (2005) · Exceptional Children · doi:10.1177/001440290507100203 · Cited by 3,368
“…practices, it is appropriate for any research method to define objective criteria that local, state or federal decision makers may use to determine if a practice is evidence based (Chambless & Hollon, 1998; Chambless & Ollendick, 2001; Odom & Strain, 2002; Shernoff, Kratochwill, & Stoiber, 2002).”
MethodMeditation Programs for Psychological Stress and Well-being: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
Goyal, M., Singh, S., Sibinga, E. M. S., Gould, N. F., Rowland-Seymour, A., Sharma, R., Berger, Z., Sleicher, D., Maron, D. D., Shihab, H. M., et al. (2014) · JAMA Internal Medicine · doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2013.13018 · Cited by 2,380
Fredrickson, B. L., Cohn, M. A., Coffey, K. A., Pek, J., & Finkel, S. M. (2008) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/a0013262 · Cited by 2,365
“Thus, we chose a waitlist control design, which can assess treatment efficacy while controlling for self-selection, history, maturation, regression to the mean, and the effects of repeated testing (Chambless & Hollon, 1998; Kazdin, 2003).”
Method
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
