Average rating
Cast your vote
You can rate an item by clicking the amount of stars they wish to award to this item.
When enough users have cast their vote on this item, the average rating will also be shown.
Star rating
Your vote was cast
Thank you for your feedback
Thank you for your feedback
Issue Date
2005-06-01
Metadata
Show full item recordCitation
Clinical Psychology Science and Practice 2005, 12(2):189-93Abstract
DeRubeis et al. (this issue) offer a data-based critique of two arguments frequently presented in support of the "nonspecifics" hypothesis. This commentary supports their report of superior effects for specific treatments for specific disorders and provides some additional data to support their position. We maintain, however, that current research has not adequately evaluated nonspecific effects so that theoretical conclusions can be drawn regarding the mechanisms of change of the superior treatments. DeRubeis et al. present some data to suggest that nonspecific effects, particularly the therapeutic alliance, are a result of therapy outcome rather than causal in therapeutic change. We argue, to the contrary, that adequate research remains to be done regarding nonspecific effects, and when that research is completed, what are now called nonspecific effects will be more aptly labeled previously unspecified effects.Description
To access publisher full text version of this article. Please click on the hyperlink in Additional LinkAdditional Links
http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1093/clipsy.bpi024ae974a485f413a2113503eed53cd6c53
10.1093/clipsy/bpi024
Scopus Count
Collections