Paper # 4: Are RCT designs in psychotherapy research essential and exclusively necessary to advance ESTs?

1731 Words4 Pages

Many convincing cases have been made both for and against the use of randomized control trails (RCTs) in psychotherapy research. Throughout this paper many of those cases will be explored. In light of the existing literature I believe randomized control trail (RCT) designs are essential in psychotherapy research and in the advancement of empirically supported treatments (EST). I do not, however, believe they are exclusively necessary for their advancement. RCTs are one of the most important components in psychotherapy research but not the only component. Westen et al. (2004a) presents one of most convincing and controversial papers among the literature addressing the use of RCTs in psychotherapy research; the paper by Westen and colleagues addresses some of the major problems with RCT designs and advocates the use of alternative measures for psychotherapy research. I will begin by addressing the issues with RCT designs as discussed in the Westen et al. (2004a) paper, mainly the set of assumptions RCT methodology is believed to rely on, as well as the responses to the allegations. I will turn next to discuss the issues of internal and external validity, as well as some of the advantages and disadvantages of RCT designs, and close with a recommendation for the use of RCTs in the future. Westen et al. (2004a), brings forth some interesting allegations regarding the use of RCTs. Some of which are widely agreed upon, others which appear to be nothing other than faulty allegations. The argument against the use of RCT designs by Westen et al. (2004a) is founded on the belief that in order for RCT methodologies to validate ESTs a certain set of assumptions must be met, and it is of course argued that these assumptions are not well validated and not widely applicable. I will touch on three of the assumptions brought forth in the Westen et al. (2004a) paper: malleability

Open Document