The myth of the scientist-practitioner: A reply to R. King (1998) and N. King and ollendick (1998)

Abstract

There is strong support within the Australian Psychological Society and the American Psychological Association for the idea that evidence-based practice is not only needed, but that it is politically wise to use an empirical approach to recommend treatment options. R. King (1998) correctly argued that there is not sufficient evidence to support cognitive-behavioural therapy as a preferred treatment for depression and that the obtained effects may be explained by common therapeutic factors. N. King and Ollendick (1998) have supported the trend toward empirically validated treatments and consider it essential for educating psychologists, insurance companies, and the public. Further examination of the related literature shows that over 80% of the variance associated with positive therapeutic outcomes can be attributed to factors associated with the therapeutic alliance rather than specific treatments, but there is no certainty about the specifics of effective therapeutic interventions. Further, scientist-practitioner psychologists have failed to demonstrate any outcome superiority compared with other professionals or paraprofessionals. There is a need to be empirically consistent, which requires that we change our current way of training psychologists.