Empirically Supported Treatment: Recommendations for a New Model
Open accessAbstract
Over the 20 years since the criteria for empirically supported treatments (ESTs) were published, standards for synthesizing evidence have evolved and more systematic approaches to reviewing the findings from intervention trials have emerged. Currently, the APA is planning the development of treatment guidelines, a process that will likely take many years. As an intermediate step, we recommend a revised set of criteria for ESTs that will utilize existing systematic reviews of all of the available literature, and recommendations that address the methodological quality, outcomes, populations, and treatment settings included in the literature.
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?
Participants were not randomized to treatment, treatment was provided by community clinicians, and participants were not excluded based on co-morbidities or medication use.
“Consistent with recommendations for effectiveness studies, participants were not randomized to treatment, treatment was provided by community clinicians, and participants were not excluded based on co -morbidities or medication use (Tolin et al ., 2015).”
From Effectiveness and predictors of group cognitive behaviour therapy outcome for generalised anxiety disorder in an out-patient hospital setting (2024) · cites this paper as Tolin et al., 2015
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 135 · Cited by 219
- Authors
- Tolin, D. F., McKay, D., Forman, E. M., Klonsky, E. D., & Thombs, B. D.
- Affiliations
- Yale University (US)
- Fordham University (US)
- Drexel University (US)
- University of British Columbia (CA)
- Jewish General Hospital (CA)
- Corresponding author
- Tolin, David F.
- Venue
- Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice
- Published
- 2015-11-09
- Volume
- 22
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 317-338
- ISSN
- 0969-5893 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2103164132
- Cited by
- 219
- References
- 135
- Citations by year
- 2026: 13 · 2025: 35 · 2024: 22 · 2023: 21 · 2022: 21 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 35 · 2019: 17 · 2018: 16 · 2017: 11 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 3
- FWCI
- 12.47
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- Locations
- Clinical Psychology Science and Practice (publishedVersion)
- eScholarship@McGill (McGill) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychotherapy Techniques and Applications
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Psychology Research and Bibliometrics
- Keywords
- empirically supported treatments, treatment criteria, treatment guidelines, systematic reviews, methodological quality, treatment outcomes, treatment setting
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
