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