Reputations, especially bad ones, are hard to live down, as any Chicagoan who travels learns only too well. Nevertheless, readers should be pleased to note that the "unscientific" reputation of psychotherapy has been challenged once again by two studies reported in this issue of the Archives. Both studies are characterized by a rigorous application of scientific research methodology, including careful experimental design and sophisticated statistical analyses, to the study of this treatment modality.
See also pp 431 and 438.
This is hardly a new development, despite the impression created several years ago by the highly publicized US Congressional foray into psychotherapy.1,2 Excellent reviews of the history of psychotherapy research can be found in a recent American Psychiatric Association monograph on this topic3 and in an article by Garfield.4 These sources surveyed the increasing number and quality of psychotherapy outcome studies, both before and after Eysenck's provocative assertion
Glass RM. PsychotherapyScientific Art or Artistic Science?. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1984;41(5):525–526. doi:10.1001/archpsyc.1984.01790160111015
Customize your JAMA Network experience by selecting one or more topics from the list below.