Bruce Wampold, Ph.D.

Late yesterday, I blogged about a soon-to-be published article in Clinical Psychology Review in which the authors argue that the finding by Benish, Imel, & Wamppold (2008) of equivalence in outcomes among treatments for PTSD was due to, “bias, over-generalization, lack of transparency, and poor judgement.”  Which interpretation of the evidence is correct?  Are there “specific approaches for specific disorders” that are demonstrably more effective than others?  Or does the available evidence show all approaches intended to be therapeutic to be equally effective?

History makes clear that science produces results in advance of understanding.  Until the response to Ehlers, Bisson, Clark, Creamer, Pilling, Richards, Schnurr, Turner, and Yule becomes available, I wanted to remind people of three prior blog posts that review the evidence regarding differential efficacy of competing therapeutic approaches.  The first (and I think most illuminating)–“The Debate of the Century“–appeared back in August.  The post featured a link to a debate between Bruce Wampold and enthusiastic proponent of “empirically supported treatments,” Steve Hollon.  Listen and then see if you agree with the large group of scientists and practitioners in attendance who thought–by a margin of 15:1–that Bruce carried the day.

The second post–Whoa Nellie!– commented on a 25 Million US$ research grant awarded by the US Department of Defense to study treatments for PTSD.  Why does this make me think of “deep throat’s” admonition to, “follow the money!”  Here you can read the study that is causing the uproar within the “specific treatments for specific disorders” gang.

Third, and finally, if you haven’t already read the post “Common versus Specific Factors and the Future of Psychotherapy,” I believe you’ll find the thorough review of the research done in response to an article by Siev and Chambless critical of the “dodo verdict” helpful.