The DOI matches its Crossref record; 150 of the 151 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Expanding the lens of evidence-based practice in psychotherapy: A common factors perspective.
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.
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 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”
From A common factors perspective on mindfulness-based interventions (2022) · cites this paper as [46]
In the citing paper
“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.”
From When ELIZA meets therapists: a Turing test for the heart and mind (2025) · cites this paper as [27]
In the citing paper
“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].”
From When ELIZA meets therapists: a Turing test for the heart and mind (2025) · cites this paper as [27]
In the citing paper
“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].”
From When ELIZA meets therapists: a Turing test for the heart and mind (2025) · cites this paper as [27]
Citations
Cites
The Structure of Scientific Revolutions
Kuhn, T. S., & Schlegel, R. (1963) · Physics Today · doi:10.1063/1.3050879 · Cited by 35,538
(1969) · Cited by 18,340
(1979) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 11,252
Crossing the Quality Chasm: A New Health System for the 21st Century
Baker, A. (2001) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.323.7322.1192 · Cited by 10,779
Cognitive Therapy for Depression
(2012) · PsycEXTRA Dataset · doi:10.1037/e675542012-001 · Cited by 9,678
Emotional processing of fear: Exposure to corrective information.
Foa, E. B., & Kozak, M. J. (1986) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.99.1.20 · Cited by 5,396
The Interpersonal Theory of Psychiatry
Sullivan, H. S., Perry, H. S., Gawel, M. L., & Cohen, M. D. M. B. (2013) · Routledge eBooks · doi:10.4324/9781315014029 · Cited by 5,280
The generalizability of the psychoanalytic concept of the working alliance.
Bordin, E. S. (1979) · Psychotherapy: Theory, Research & Practice · doi:10.1037/h0085885 · Cited by 5,238
Falsification and the Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes
Lakatos, I. (1970) · Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge · doi:10.1017/cbo9781139171434.009 · Cited by 4,649 · cited 1×
“However, “the problem fever of science is raised by the proliferation of rival theories rather than by counterexamples or anomalies” (Lakatos, 1970, p. 121) and consequently the validity of the EST approach requires that it be examined vis-à-vis rival theories, the most prominent of which is CF.”
BackgroundFalsification and the Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes
Lakatos, I. (1976) · Can Theories be Refuted? · doi:10.1007/978-94-010-1863-0_14 · Cited by 3,915
Cited by
Sorted by citations
How important are the common factors in psychotherapy? An update
Wampold, B. E. (2015) · World Psychiatry · doi:10.1002/wps.20238 · Cited by 1,728
“During this period, the common factors have been both embraced and dismissed, creating some tension (5-9).”
BackgroundSelf-citationSynchrony in Psychotherapy: A Review and an Integrative Framework for the Therapeutic Alliance
Koole, S. L., & Tschacher, W. (2016) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00862 · Cited by 456
“Consistent with this, there is a growing consensus in clinical psychology that common and specific factors jointly shape therapeutic outcomes (Hofmann and Barlow, 2014; Laska et al., 2014).”
BackgroundKuester, A., Niemeyer, H., & Knaevelsrud, C. (2016) · Clinical Psychology Review · doi:10.1016/j.cpr.2015.11.004 · Cited by 261
Expertise in psychotherapy: An elusive goal?
Tracey, T. J. G., Wampold, B. E., Lichtenberg, J. W., & Goodyear, R. K. (2014) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/a0035099 · Cited by 301
Self-citationEvidence-Based Psychotherapy: Advantages and Challenges
Cook, S. C., Schwartz, A. C., & Kaslow, N. J. (2017) · Neurotherapeutics · doi:10.1007/s13311-017-0549-4 · Cited by 252
Metadata
- 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)
- ORCID
- Wampold, Bruce E.
- Venue
- Psychotherapy
- Published
- 2014
- Volume
- 51
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 467-481
- ISSN
- 0033-3204 (ISSN-L)
- 1939-1536
- OpenAlex
- W2327281039
- Semantic Scholar
- 6006f594d7a6fd3ad956dd7da833c59f1d33be41
- 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 › Clinical 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
