Cited by 72Psychotherapy Techniques and ApplicationsHealth Policy Implementation ScienceMeta-analysis and systematic reviews

Limitations of Randomized Control Designs in Psychotherapy Research

Open access
Shean, Glenn·2014·Advances in Psychiatry

Abstract

Despite the growing influence of lists of empirically supported therapies (ESTs) there are concerns about the design and conduct of this body of research. These concerns include limitations inherent in the requirements of randomized control trials (RCTs) that favor those psychotherapies that define problems and outcome in terms of uncomplicated symptoms. Additional concerns have to do with criteria for patient selection, lack of integration with research on psychotherapy process and effectiveness studies, limited outcome criteria, and lack of controls for experimenter bias. RCT designs have an important place in outcome research; however it is important to recognize that these designs also place restrictions on what and how psychotherapy can be studied. There is a need for large scale psychotherapy outcome research based on designs that allow for inclusion of process variables and the study of the effects of those idiographic approaches to therapy that do not lend themselves to RCT designs. Interpretative phenomenological analysis may provide a useful method for the evaluation of the effectiveness of idiographic approaches to psychotherapy where outcome is not understood solely in terms of symptom reduction.

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 · 10.1155/2014/561452

Cites

29 of 29 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?

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: 3

  1. B. Wampold, "Do therapies designated as ESTs for specific disorders produce outcomes superior to non-EST therapies? Not a scintilla of evidence to support ESTs as more effective than other treatments, " in Evidence-Based Practices in Mental Health: Debate and Dialogue on the Fundamental Questions, J. C. Norcross, L. E. Beutler, and R. F. Levant, Eds., pp. 299-308, American Psychological Association, Washington, DC, USA, 2005.
  2. D. L. Chambless and T. H. Ollendick, "Empirically sup- ported psychological interventions: controversies and evi- dence, " Annual Review of Psychology, vol. 52, pp. 685-716, 2001.
  3. R. Frie, Understanding Experience: Psychology and Postmod- ernism, Routledge, New York, NY, USA, 2003.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Shean, G.
Affiliations
William & Mary (US)
Corresponding author
Shean, Glenn
Venue
Advances in Psychiatry
Published
2014-11-06
Volume
2014
Pages
1-5
ISSN
  • 2314-7768 (ISSN-L)
  • 2356-685X
OpenAlex
W1967728573
Cited by
72
References
27
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 18 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 1
FWCI
1.57
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
Advances in Psychiatry (publishedVersion, cc-by)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychotherapy Techniques and Applications
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
Keywords
randomized controlled trials, psychotherapy outcome research, empirically supported treatments, patient selection criteria, researcher bias, interpretative phenomenological analysis, symptom relief

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