Reaffirming science in psychotherapy research

Jeanne Miranda, Thomas D. Borkovec

Research output: Contribution to journalReview articlepeer-review

12 Scopus citations


In this article, we respond to the three critiques of our earlier article about between-groups psychotherapy designs. In the original article, we argued that for between-groups psychotherapy designs, the specificity of the scientific information that we gain is determined by how much is held constant and how specific the factors are that are manipulated between comparative conditions. We recommended dismantling, additive, and parametric designs over comparative and no treatment/placebo designs for increasing specificity about causal mechanisms. In the critiques, the authors recommended idiographic approaches to psychotherapy outcomes focusing on therapists, patients, and settings. We disagree with this viewpoint and endorse the basic scientific method as a means of determining specific therapeutic mechanisms that can reliably alter specific psychopathologies.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)191-200
Number of pages10
JournalJournal of clinical psychology
Issue number2
StatePublished - Feb 1999

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Clinical Psychology
  • Arts and Humanities (miscellaneous)


Dive into the research topics of 'Reaffirming science in psychotherapy research'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this