Thank you, Cole, I liked that the article suggested that there is something valuable in studying what happens in everyday clinical practice, -Chance On Mon, May 4, 2020 at 9:02 PM Cole Butler <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > Hi all, > > I have been sitting in on my boss's graduate course, "Behavioral and > Cognitive Behavioral Intervention for Children and Adolescents," and have > been completing some of the associated readings. Our last week of reading > is this week, and I came across this excerpt in the book that we use > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.amazon.com_Evidence-2DBased-2DPsychotherapies-2DChildren-2DAdolescents-2DThird_dp_1462522696_ref-3Ddp-5Fob-5Ftitle-5Fbk&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=LRs-Uams-vXUPwgdZlTCg6QYRHduyoIVa5ns-hSkxWM&s=ITTUXQMgC6Iaa03wkBKwoCgId1kzYK7hwErHuixK_p8&e=> > : > > *Coverage of Theoretical Perspectives on Youth Treatment* > > "The evidence-based psychotherapies encompass several of the influential > theoretical perspectives that have guided youth treatment historically, but > certainly not all the relevant theories. Behavioral (operant, classical, > and modeling) approaches are common among the tested treatments, as are > cognitive-behavioral applications; and family systems perspectives are > evident in some treatments (e.g., Le Grange & Robin, Chapter 18, this > volume). But numerous other schools of therapy (e.g., psychodynamic, > client-centered, humanistic) are largely missing from the roster. A similar > pattern is evident in meta-analyses of published treatment outcome research > (e.g., Kazdin et al., 1990; Weisz, Weiss, Han, Granger, & Morton, 1995; > Weisz et al., in press), with the great majority of the studies in those > meta-analyses testing behavioral and cognitive-behavioral treatments. > A problem with this state of affairs is that many of the nonbehavioral > treatment models that are common in everyday clinical practice are rarely > found in the child and adolescent research literature (see, e.g., Kazdin et > al., 1990; Weisz et al., in press). We have a strong and rapidly expanding > evidence base on treatments that are not so widely used in practice, and we > have a weak and barely growing evidence base on the approaches that are > especially common in practice, some of which might prove to be effective if > properly tested (Kazdin, 2015; Weisz, Kuppens, et al., 2013). Indeed, in a > meta-analysis of randomized trials comparing certified evidence-based youth > psychotherapies to usual clinical care (Weisz et al., 2013), 29% of the > studies showed either negligible differences (effect sizes < 0.10) or > superior effects for usual care, suggesting that we may have something to > learn from everyday clinical practice. The treatment approaches that > service providers use and trust clearly warrant more attention in clinical > trials than they have received to date. The disparity between the scope of > evidence and the scope of practice is illustrated by Kazdin’s (2000) count > identifying more than 550 named therapies that are used with children and > adolescents, only a tiny percentage of which have been subjected to any > empirical test. The field could profit from research that broadens the > array of empirically tested treatment models. Researchers willing to take > on this challenge will find no shortage of candidate models." > > I found this very interesting, as I find myself likened more to the "other > schools of therapy" referenced herein, more so than to cognitive-behavioral > therapies. I have noticed this inclination toward using behavioral-based > therapies in child treatment research, and found it quite interesting that, > as they point out, therapies in the community setting are *usually not > those*. > > It seems that the child-treatment folks are becoming more focused on > integrated and/or alternative approaches in the child literature as well. > At least, it seems so. I think a lot about going the clinical child track, > and I would find it very compelling to examine how well other > therapeutic systems outside of the domain of the hot-topic EBTs work. > > Anyway, just some thoughts - figured some of you would find this > interesting. I've attached a PDF of the book chapter if you'd like to read > the rest of it (please do not distribute it). > > Best, > > Cole Butler > TPAC Project Coordinator > University of Maryland > UMD ADHD Lab > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.umdadhd.org_cole&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=LRs-Uams-vXUPwgdZlTCg6QYRHduyoIVa5ns-hSkxWM&s=EBS8fUbhtMFDk4R1XDSu_q_ADjXw9XiZBdqX41JOCQk&e=> > 2103W, Cole Field House | College Park, MD 20742 > tel 301.405.6163 > ############################ > > To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to: > mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the > following link: > http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1 > ############################ To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to: mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the following link: http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1