Cited by 1,085Psychotherapy Techniques and ApplicationsHealth Policy Implementation ScienceCounseling Practices and Supervision

Training therapists in evidence-based practice: A critical review of studies from a systems-contextual perspective.

Open access
Beidas, Rinad S., Kendall, Philip C.·2010·Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice

Abstract

Evidence-based practice (EBP), a preferred psychological treatment approach, requires training of community providers. The systems-contextual (SC) perspective, a model for dissemination and implementation efforts, underscores the importance of the therapist, client, and organizational variables that influence training and consequent therapist uptake and adoption of EBP. This review critiques the extant research on training in EBP from an SC perspective. Findings suggest that therapist knowledge improves and attitudinal change occurs following training. However, change in therapist behaviors (e.g., adherence, competence, and skill) and client outcomes only occurs when training interventions address each level of the SC model and include active learning. Limitations as well as areas for future research are discussed.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1468-2850.2009.01187.x

Cites

80 of 80 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Barriers for the dissemination of MBIs are similar to those facing other evidence-based psychotherapies (eg, lack of available providers, cost, logistical challenges).

    “Barriers for the dissemination of MBIs are similar to those facing other evidence-based psychotherapies (eg, lack of available providers, cost, logistical challenges) [23-25].”

    From Testing the efficacy of a multicomponent, self-guided, smartphone-based meditation app: Three-armed randomized controlled trial (2020) · cites this paper as [24]

    The Abstract identifies inadequate training and unsupportive organizational climates as barriers to disseminating evidence-based psychotherapies, and the General Discussion describes difficulty achieving therapist proficiency. The paper does not establish that barriers to mindfulness-based interventions (MBIs) are similar, or identify cost and logistical challenges as the cited examples do. It supports the general point that other evidence-based psychotherapies face dissemination barriers, but not the full comparison. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Active role-playing, experiential exercises, coaching, and weekly feedback-based supervision are recommended by the empirical literature for training intervention facilitators.

    “The training days incorporate active role-playing, experiential exercises, and coaching, followed by weekly feedback-based supervision, approaches recommended by the empirical literature [65, 66].”

    From A randomized controlled trial of a group acceptance-based intervention for cancer survivors experiencing anxiety at re-entry ('Valued Living'): Study protocol (2019) · cites this paper as [66]

    The Abstract endorses active learning and role-plays and says ongoing supervision may be needed for therapist behavior change. The Results describe experiential exercises, coaching, feedback, and examples of weekly supervision, but do not recommend weekly feedback-based supervision as a specific regimen. (LLM, conf=0.83)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The online and in-person trainings for M-ACT facilitators included active role-playing, experiential exercises, and coaching, reflecting evidence-based training approaches.

    “The online and in-person trainings included active role-playing, experiential exercises, and coaching, reflecting evidence-based training approaches [53].”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Watkins K Osilla K Hepner K Sandres P Thompson J 2008 February Project BRIGHT: Building recovery by improving goals, habits and thoughts Symposium conducted at the Co-occurring Disorders Conference

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Beidas, R. S., & Kendall, P. C.
Affiliations
Temple University (US)
Venue
Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice
Published
2010-03
Volume
17
Issue
1
Pages
1-30
ISSN
  • 0969-5893 (ISSN-L)
  • 1468-2850
OpenAlex
W2125675643
Cited by
1,085
References
74
Citations by year
2026: 30 · 2025: 50 · 2024: 72 · 2023: 66 · 2022: 59 · 2021: 99 · 2020: 82 · 2019: 74 · 2018: 77 · 2017: 85 · 2016: 71 · 2015: 88 · 2014: 61 · 2013: 72 · 2012: 48
FWCI
59.54
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Clinical Psychology Science and Practice (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
Sponsor name not included (F31 MH083333)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychotherapy Techniques and Applications
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Counseling Practices and Supervision
Keywords
evidence-based practice, therapist training, dissemination and implementation, community service providers, therapist adherence, therapist competence, active learning, attitude change, client outcomes, organizational factors

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