Identifying empirically supported treatments: What if we didn't?

It is concluded that the Division 12 Task Force's selection of criteria, particularly as modified by D. L. Chambless and S. Hollon (1998), was a reasonable response to these pressures.

Abstract

The conclusion of the Division 12 Task Force's report on empirically supported treatments raises 3 questions: (a) Is it desirable for the profession to specify what treatments are effective? (b) Do the criteria, either selected by the Task Force or modified by others, represent a reasonable way of identifying effective treatments? (c) Would different and less controversial conclusions have been reached if the criteria used were broadened to include naturalistic and quasi-experimental studies? It is concluded that the Task Force's selection of criteria, particularly as modified by D. L. Chambless and S. D. Hollon (1998), was a reasonable response to these pressures. Findings from studies using less stringent and controlled research designs suggest that the proposals may have resulted in less palatable conclusions than those offered in its original report.