Cited by 443Psychotherapy Techniques and ApplicationsCounseling Practices and SupervisionCounseling, Therapy, and Family Dynamics

Expanding the lens of evidence-based practice in psychotherapy: A common factors perspective.

Laska, Kevin M., Gurman, Alan S., Wampold, Bruce E.·2014·Psychotherapy

Abstract

In this article, we examine the science and policy implications of the common factors perspective (CF; Frank & Frank, 1993; Wampold, 2007). As the empirically supported treatment (EST) approach, grounded in randomized controlled trials (RCTs), is the received view (see Baker, McFall, & Shoham, 2008; McHugh & Barlow, 2012), we make the case for the CF perspective as an additional evidence-based approach for understanding how therapy works, but also as a basis for improving the quality of mental health services. Finally, we argue that it is time to integrate the 2 perspectives, and we challenge the field to do so.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/a0034332

Cites

151 of 151 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

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?

  • The therapeutic alliance is the most extensively studied common factor.

    “The therapeutic alliance (the affective bond between therapist and patient, and agreement on the tasks and goals of therapy) is the most widely studied common factor.46,52”
  • Existing work only focuses on GenAI's capacity to produce responses high in perceived empathy, one of the five key elements of the therapeutic process according to the common factor metatheory.

    “existing work only focuses on GenAI’s capacity to produce responses high in perceived empathy, one of the five key elements of the therapeutic process according to the common factor metatheory.”
  • The common factors metatheory stipulates that successful therapies share at least five common ingredients: therapeutic alliance, empathy, expectations, cultural competence, and therapist effects.

    “The common factors metatheory describes how different therapeutic orientations produce similar results for clients, stipulating that successful therapies share at least five common “ingredients:” therapeutic alliance, empathy, expectations, cultural competence, and therapist effects [27, 28, 31–33].”
  • Common factors undergird and act as a mechanism for much of the evidence-based treatment literature.

    “Given that common factors undergird and act as a mechanism for much of the evidence-based treatment literature [27, 28], and the direction and size of the effects, consulting with ChatGPT may be a way to improve declining or stagnating effect sizes within the evidence-based clinical psychological sciences [34, 35].”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Laska, K. M., Gurman, A. S., & Wampold, B. E.
Affiliations
  • Edith Nourse Rogers Memorial Veterans Hospital (US)
  • Northwestern University (US)
  • University of Wisconsin–Madison (US)
Venue
Psychotherapy
Published
2014
Volume
51
Issue
4
Pages
467-481
ISSN
  • 0033-3204 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-1536
OpenAlex
W2327281039
Cited by
443
References
151
Citations by year
2026: 15 · 2025: 27 · 2024: 30 · 2023: 24 · 2022: 30 · 2021: 34 · 2020: 47 · 2019: 51 · 2018: 37 · 2017: 53 · 2016: 44 · 2015: 36 · 2014: 15
FWCI
34.92
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Psychotherapy (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychotherapy Techniques and Applications
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Counseling Practices and Supervision
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Counseling, Therapy, and Family Dynamics
Keywords
empirically supported treatments, evidence-based practice, psychotherapy outcome, randomized controlled trials, mental health care quality, treatment integration
MeSH terms
Mental Disorders, Humans, Psychotherapy, Evidence-Based Medicine, Empirical Research

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