EMPIRICALLY VIOLATED TREATMENTS - DISFRANCHISEMENT OF HUMANISTIC AND OTHER PSYCHOTHERAPIES

It is argued that the criteria for ''empirically validated treatments' ' are restrictive and scientifically unjustified, could disenfranchise therapies which do not share the Division 12 task force's assumptions about the nature of psychotherapy, and will stifle psychological rese arch. The criteria are based on a medical-like meta-model of psychothe rapy designed to appeal to the managed-care market, but are inappropri ate for therapies whose primary focus is not to ''cure disorder.'' We argue that empirical support for a therapy should include research bas ed on methods compatible with the assumptions of the therapy, in parti cular on what it means to say that a given therapy ''works.'' Neither manualization nor the requirement of targeting therapy for treating sp ecific disorders necessarily fit with humanistic assumptions. Natural science methodology also should not be privileged over human science m ethodology. Under criteria other than those of the task force there is considerable empirical support for humanistic assumptions.