Many researchers and clinicians would agree that the evaluation of treatment is necessary. Not all, however agree on the best methods of doing it.
“Most empirically supported treatments are defined as treatments shown to be efficacious in randomized clinical research trials (RCTs) with given populations (see American Psychological Association Task Force in Promotion and Dissemination of Psychological Procedures, 1995).”
-Michael Lambert, Allen Bergin, Sol Garfield, Handbook of Psychotherapy and Behavior Change, 5th edition
These are known as efficacy studies.
Efficacy studies:
-Asks “does the a particular treatment approach work in a defined (usually an “ideal”) setting?”
-In general, the inclusion criteria for study participants will be very selective.
-Patient adherence tends to be carefully monitored.
-The clinicians conducting the trial are often specially trained in the intervention and its application.
-The treatment occurs in an ideal setting and the risk of other confounding interventions (e.g., comorbid diagnoses) will be limited.
So what’s the alternative?
Effectiveness studies:
-Asks “Does the treatment approach work in the real world?”
-The inclusion criteria for study participants tends to be less selective.
-Patient adherence to the protocol is not necessarily strictly enforced.
-The clinicians conducting the trial tend to be representative of the typical clinicians who would treat this condition.
-The intervention occurs in a more ‘real-world’ setting where the presence of other confounding factors may be (and often are) present.
