Cited by 889Psychotherapy Techniques and ApplicationsHealth Policy Implementation ScienceAcademic and Historical Perspectives in Psychology

The Future of Intervention Science: Process-Based Therapy

Open access
Hofmann, Stefan G., Hayes, Steven C.·2019·Clinical Psychological Science

Abstract

Clinical science seems to have reached a tipping point. It appears that a new paradigm is beginning to emerge that is questioning the validity and utility of the medical illness model, which assumes that latent disease entities are targeted with specific therapy protocols. A new generation of evidence-based care has begun to move toward process-based therapies to target core mediators and moderators based on testable theories. This could represent a paradigm shift in clinical science with far-reaching implications. Clinical science might see a decline of named therapies defined by set technologies, a decline of broad schools, a rise of testable models, a rise of mediation and moderation studies, the emergence of new forms of diagnosis based on functional analysis, a move from nomothetic to idiographic approaches, and a move toward processes that specify modifiable elements. These changes could integrate or bridge different treatment orientations, settings, and even cultures.

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 · 10.1177/2167702618772296

Cites

72 of 72 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?

  • Traditional approaches evaluating effectiveness of generic interventions by comparing aggregated group data are limiting because they overlook individual differences in training needs and outcomes.

    “traditional approaches evaluating the effectiveness of generic interventions by comparing aggregated group data are limiting as they overlook important information regarding individual differences in training needs and outcomes [69-71].”

    From Evaluation of an App-Delivered Psychological Flexibility Skill Training Intervention for Medical Student Burnout and Well-being: Randomized Controlled Trial (2023) · cites this paper as [71]

    In “From Nomothetic to Idiographic Approaches” (page unavailable), the paper says syndrome-based CBT protocols largely ignored differences between individuals. It supports the concern about generic interventions, but does not specifically say that comparisons of aggregated group data overlook individual training needs and outcomes; its focus is clinical treatment. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Evaluating psychological flexibility and inflexibility separately provides a stronger understanding of intervention methodologies that can address heterogeneity.

    “evaluating them separately provides a stronger understanding of intervention methodologies that can address this heterogeneity [70,71].”

    From Evaluation of an App-Delivered Psychological Flexibility Skill Training Intervention for Medical Student Burnout and Well-being: Randomized Controlled Trial (2023) · cites this paper as [71]

    In “The Quest to Link Treatment to Syndrome” (page unavailable), the paper identifies client heterogeneity as a problem, and “A Move toward Process-Based Therapy” links therapeutic processes to intervention strategies. It does not say that evaluating psychological flexibility and inflexibility separately improves understanding of interventions; that specific recommendation is unsupported. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Building matrices of change and change procedures represented a valuable method to ensure change mechanisms were precisely defined and effectively linked to therapeutic applications.

    “Building matrices of change and change procedures represented a valuable method to ensure our change mechanisms were precisely defined (148) and got effectively linked to therapeutic applications (75).”

    From Developing a mechanism-based therapy for acute psychiatric inpatients with psychotic symptoms: an Intervention Mapping approach (2023) · cites this paper as [75]

    In the Abstract (page unavailable), Hofmann and Hayes define therapeutic processes as change mechanisms and distinguish them from therapeutic procedures. In “The Rise of Mediation and Moderation Studies” (page unavailable), they call for processes of change to be specified and linked to interventions. Our copy does not describe building matrices as the method for defining those mechanisms; the citation to this paper is attached to the precise-definition part of the citing sentence. (LLM, conf=0.83)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • SCEDs provide evidence of the effectiveness of interventions, drawing on substantially fewer participants than nomothetic approaches such as RCTs.

    “In doing this, SCEDs provide evidence of the effectiveness of interventions, drawing on substantially fewer participants than nomothetic approaches (such as RCTs) [51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58].”

    From Brief and Telehealth Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT) Interventions for Stress in Inflammatory Bowel Disease (IBD): A Series of Single Case Experimental Design (SCED) Studies (2022) · cites this paper as [58]

    The “From Nomothetic to Idiographic Approaches” section identifies single-case experimental designs as tools for studying change in individuals, while “The Quest to Link Treatment to Syndrome” describes randomized trials as a way to test interventions. The paper does not say that SCEDs establish intervention effectiveness with substantially fewer participants than RCTs. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • ACT, as a contextual-behavioral approach proposed by the latest process-based evolutionary meta-model, allows for the inclusion of social and environmental factors (e.g., school, family, peers) in case conceptualization and therapeutic process.

    “This contextual-behavioral approach, as proposed by the latest process-based evolutionary meta-model (Hofmann and Hayes, 2019), allows for the inclusion of social and environmental factors (e.g., school, family, peers), in case conceptualization and therapeutic process.”

    From Process of change and efficacy of acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT) for anxiety and depression symptoms in adolescents: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. (2025) · cites this paper as Hofmann and Hayes, 2019

    In “The Importance of Context” (page unavailable), the paper says process-based therapy must attend to historical, social, and situational context, supporting the inclusion of social and environmental factors in treatment. But “The Decline of Named Therapies” describes ACT only as a possible example of a process-based approach, not as an approach proposed by a process-based evolutionary meta-model. The paper does not specifically discuss school, family, or peers in this connection. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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. Uddin M Sipahi L 2013 Epigenetic influence on mental illnesses over the life course Koenen KC Rudenstine S Susser E Galea S A life course approach to mental disorders 240 248 Oxford Oxford University Press
  2. Wilson DS Hayes SC in press Evolution and contextual behavioral science: An integrated framework for understanding, predicting, and influencing human behavior Oakland, CA Context Press/New Harbinger Publications
  3. Zettle RD Hayes SC Barnes-Holmes D Biglan T 2016 The Wiley handbook of Contextual Behavioral Science Chichester, UK Wiley/Blackwell

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hofmann, S. G., & Hayes, S. C.
Affiliations
  • Boston University (US)
  • University of Nevada, Reno (US)
Corresponding author
Hofmann, Stefan G.
Venue
Clinical Psychological Science
Published
2018-05-29
Volume
7
Issue
1
Pages
37-50
ISSN
  • 2167-7026 (ISSN-L)
  • 2167-7034
OpenAlex
W2807203549
Cited by
888
References
67
Citations by year
2026: 145 · 2025: 114 · 2024: 121 · 2023: 128 · 2022: 134 · 2021: 114 · 2020: 80 · 2019: 39 · 2018: 13
FWCI
72.27
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Clinical Psychological Science (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institute of Mental Health (R01MH099021, R34MH099311, U01MH108168)
  • National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health (R01AT007257)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychotherapy Techniques and Applications
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › General Psychology › Academic and Historical Perspectives in Psychology
Keywords
process-based therapy, intervention research, evidence-based care, mediating and moderating effects

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