Future Directions for Clinical Research, Services, and Training: Evidence-Based Assessment Across Informants, Cultures, and Dimensional Hierarchies

Abstract

As the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (5th ed.; DSM-5) acknowledges, DSM diagnostic categories do not fit the real-world heterogeneity, comorbidity, and complexity of most mental health problems. Many efforts to develop and test evidence-based treatments also fail to take account of the heterogeneity, comorbidity, and complexity of problems seen in the community settings where most mental health services are rendered. Most community services cannot attain the treatment specificity and fidelity characterizing randomized controlled trials, which often yield larger therapeutic effects than when the tested treatments are tried in community services. Widely applicable evidence-based assessments (EBAs) can bridge gaps between evidence-based treatments and the diverse providers, cases, and conditions characterizing community services. To advance community services, intake EBAs can help providers take account of cross-informant discrepancies, parents’ problems, multicultural variations, and hierarchical dimensional aspects of psychopathology. To capitalize on intake EBAs, progress and outcome EBAs should be used to identify changes and failures-to-change on which to base recalibrations of treatments. To strengthen therapeutic alliances, the results of intake, progress, and outcome EBAs can be shared with parents. To bridge gaps between research and services, it is recommended that training in clinical research and services should (a) focus on widely applicable EBAs as essential foundations for evidence-based practice; (b) systematically promote intake, progress, and outcome EBAs; and (c) equip psychologists to advance evidence-based practice in community services. To implement these recommendations, research is needed on how to increase use of EBAs, organize services around routine use of EBAs, and help providers base service decisions on EBAs.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This work was supported by the nonprofit Research Center for Children, Youth, and Families, which publishes the Achenbach System of Empirically Based Assessment and from which the author receives remuneration. The author is grateful to the following people for their helpful comments on drafts of this article: Drs. Masha Y. Ivanova, Alan E. Kazdin, Eric J. Mash, Leslie A. Rescorla, and John R. Weisz.