Causality in psychotherapy research: Towards evidential pluralism

References

• American Psychological Association. (2005). APA Policy Statement on Evidence-Based Practice, retrieved May 2020 from https://www.apa.org/practice/guidelines/evidence-based- statement.
   Google Scholar
• American Psychological Association. (2006). Evidence-based practice in psychology. American Psychologist, 61(4), 271–285. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.61.4.271
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Anjum, R. L., Copeland, S., & Rocca, E. (2020). Medical scientists and philosophers worldwide appeal to EBM to expand the notion of ‘evidence’. BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine, 25(1), 6–8. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjebm-2018-111092
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Anjum, R. L., & Mumford, S. (2018a). Causation in science and the methods of scientific discovery. Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Anjum, R., & Mumford, S. (2018b). Dispositionalism: A dynamic theory of causation. In J. Dupré, & D. Nicholson (Eds.), Everything flows: Towards a processual philosophy of biology (pp. 61–75). Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Antonakis, J., Bendahan, S., Jacquart, P., & Lalive, R. (2010). On making causal claims. A review and recommendations. The Leadership Quarterly, 21, 108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2010.10.010
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baldwin, S. A., & Goldberg, S. B. (2021). Methodological foundations and innovations in quantitative psychotherapy research. In M. Barkham, W. Lutz, & L. G. Castonguay (Eds.), Bergin and Garfield’s handbook of psychotherapy and behavior change. 50th anniversary edition. (pp. 19–49). Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Barkham, M., & Lambert, M. J. (2021). The efficacy and effectiveness of psychological therapies. In M. Barkham, W. Lutz, & L. G. Castonguay (Eds.), Bergin and Garfield’s handbook of psychotherapy and behavior change. 50th anniversary edition (pp. 135–189). Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Benton, T., & Craib, I. (2011). Philosophy of social science. The foundations of social thought (second edition). Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Bhaskar, R. (1998). General introduction. In M. Archer, R. Bhaskar, R. Collier, T. Lawson, & A. Norrie (Eds.), Critical realism: Essential readings (pp. ix–xxiv). Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Bhaskar, R., & Lawson, T. (1998). Introduction. Basic texts and developments. In M. Archer, R. Bhaskar, R. Collier, T. Lawson, & A. Norrie (Eds.), Critical realism: Essential readings (pp. 3–15). Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Bird, A., Ellis, B., & Sankey, H. (2012). In A. Bird, B. Ellis, & H. Sankey (Eds.), Properties, powers and structure. Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Blumer, H. (1954). What is wrong with social theory. American Sociological Review, 19(1), 3–10. https://doi.org/10.2307/2088165
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bohart, A. C. (2000). Paradigm clash: Empirically supported treatments versus empirically supported psychotherapy practice. Psychotherapy Research, 10(4), 488–493. https://doi.org/10.1080/713663783
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bohart, A. C., Tallman, K. L., Byock, G., & Mackrill, T. (2011). The “research jury method”: The application of the jury trial model to evaluating the validity of descriptive and causal statements about psychotherapy process and outcome. Pragmatic Case Studies in Psychotherapy, 101–144. http://pcsp.libraries.rutgers.edu 7, Module 1, Article 8. https://doi.org/10.14713/pcsp.v7i1.1075
   Google Scholar
• Bohart, A. C., & Wade, A. G. (2013). The client in psychotherapy. In M. J. Lambert (Ed.), Bergin and Garfield’s handbook of psychotherapy and behavior change. Sixth edition (pp. 219–257). Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Bordin, E. S. (1979). The generalizability of the psychoanalytic concept of the working alliance. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research and Practice, 16(3), 252–260. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0085885
   Google Scholar
• Broadie, S. (2009). The ancient Greeks. In H. Beebe, C. Hitchcock, & P. Menzies (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of causation (pp. 21–39). Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bullock, J. G., Green, D. P., & Ha, S. E. (2010). Yes, but what’s the mechanism? (Don’t expect an easy answer). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98(4), 550–558. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018933
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carey, T. A., Tai, S. J., Mansell, W., Huddy, V., Griffiths, R., & Marken, R. S. (2017). Improving professional psychological practice through an increased repertoire of research methodologies: Illustrated by the development of MOL. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 48(3), 175–182. https://doi.org/10.1037/pro0000132
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carey, T., & Stiles, W. B. (2016). Some problems with randomized controlled trials and some viable alternatives. Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, 23(1), 87–95. https://doi.org/10.1002/cpp.1942
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cartwright, N. (1989). Nature’s capacities and their measurements. Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Cartwright, N. (2004). Causation: One word, many things. Philosophy of Science, 71(5), 805–819. https://doi.org/10.1086/426771
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cartwright, N. (2010). What are randomised controlled trials good for? Philosophical Studies: An International Journal for Philosophy in the Analytic Tradition, 147(1), 59–70. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11098-009-9450-2
   Google Scholar
• Cartwright, N. (2014). Causal inference. In N. Cartwright, & E. Montuschi (Eds.), Philosophy of social science (pp. 308–326). Oxford.
   Google Scholar
• Cartwright, N., & Hardie, J. (2012). Evidence-based policy. A guide to do it better. Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Chambless, D. L., Sanderson, W. C., Shoham, V., Bennett Johnson, S., Pope, K. S., Crits- Christoph, P., Baker, M., Johnson, B., Woody, S. R., Sue, S., Beutler, L., Williams, D. A., & McCurry, S. (1996). An update on empirically validated therapies. The Clinical Psychologist, 49, 5–18.
   Google Scholar
• Chambless, D. L., Sanderson, W. C., Shoham, V., Johnson, S. B., Pope, K. S., Crits-Christoph, P., Baker, M., Johnson, B., Woody, S. R., Sue, S., & Beutler, L. (1998). Update on empirically validated therapies II. The Clinical Psychologist, 51, 3–16.
   Google Scholar
• Clarke, B., Gillies, D., Illari, P., Russo, F., & Williamson, J. (2014). Mechanisms and the evidence hierarchy. Topoi, 33(2), 339–360. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11245-013-9220-9
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Crits-Christoph, P., & Connolly Gibbons, M. B. C. (2021). Psychotherapy process-outcome research: Advances in understanding causal connections. In M. Barkham, W. Lutz, & L. G. Castonguay (Eds.), Bergin and garfield’s handbook of psychotherapy and behavior change. 50th anniversary edition (pp. 263–295). Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Deaton, A., & Cartwright, N. (2018). Understanding and misunderstanding randomized controlled trials. Social Science & Medicine, 210, 2–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2017.12.005
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Elliott, R. (1998). Editor's introduction: A guide to the empirically supported treatments controversy. Psychotherapy Research, 8(2), 115–125. https://doi.org/10.1080/10503309812331332257
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Elliott, R. (2002). Hermeneutic single-case efficacy design. Psychotherapy Research, 12(1), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/713869614
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Emmel, N., Greenhalgh, J., Manzano, A., Monaghan, M., & Dalkin, S. (eds.). (2018). Doing realist research. Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Falkenström, F., Granström, F., & Holmqvist, R. (2013). Therapeutic alliance predicts symptomatic improvement session by session. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 60(3), 317–328. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032258
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gillies, D. (2019). Causality, probability, and medicine. Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Goldfried, M. R. (1980). Toward the delineation of therapeutic change principles. American Psychologist, 35(11), 991–999. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.35.11.991
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goldfried, M. R. (2009). Searching for therapy change principles: Are we there yet? Applied & Preventive Psychology, 13(1-4), 32–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appsy.2009.10.013
   Google Scholar
• Groff, R. (2011). Getting past hume in the philosophy of the social science. In P. M. Illari, F. Russo, & J. Williamson (Eds.), Causality in the social sciences (pp. 296–316). Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Groff, R., & Greco, J. (eds.). (2013). Powers and capacities in philosophy. The new Aristotelianism. Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Grosz, M. P., Rohrer, J. M., & Thoemmes, F. (2020). The taboo against explicit causal inference in nonexperimental psychology. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 15(5), 1243–1255. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691620921521
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hacking, I. (1983/2005). Representing and intervening. Introductory topics in the philosophy of natural science. Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hatcher, R. L., & Barends, A. W. (2006). How a return to theory could help alliance research. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, Practice, Training, 43(3), 292–299. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-3204.43.3.292
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hempel, C. G. (1942). The function of general laws in history. The Journal of Philosophy, 39(2), 35–48. https://doi.org/10.2307/2017635
   Google Scholar
• Hernán, M. A. (2018). The C-Word: Scientific euphemisms do not improve causal inference from observational data. AJPH. Public Health of Consequence, 108, 616–619.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Howard, G. S. (1983). Toward methodological pluralism. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 30(1), 19–21. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.30.1.19
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Höfler, M. (2005). The Bradford Hill considerations on causality: A counterfactual perspective. Emerging Themes in Epidemiology, 2(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1186/1742-7622-2-11
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Höfler, M., Trautmann, S., & Kanske, P. (2021). Qualitative approximations to causality: Non-randomizable factors in clinical psychology. Clinical Psychology in Europe, 3(2), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.32872/cpe.3873
   Google Scholar
• Hume, D. (1739/1978). A treatise of the human nature, Selby–Bigge edn. Clarendon Press. 1888.
   Google Scholar
• Jacobs, J. (2017). Causal powers. (Ed.). Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Johnson, R. B. (2017). Dialectical pluralism: A metaparadigm whose time Has come. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 11(2), 156–173. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689815607692
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Johnson, R. B., & Schoonenboom, J. (2016). Adding qualitative and mixed methods research to health intervention studies: Interacting With differences. Qualitative Health Research, 26(5), 587–602. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732315617479
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kazdin, A. E. (1998). Research design in clinical psychology (3rd ed.). Allyn & Bacon.
   Google Scholar
• Kazdin, A. E. (2021). Single-case research designs: Methods for clinical and applied settings. Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kazdin, A. E. (2022). Drawing causal inferences from randomized controlled trials in psychotherapy research. Psychotherapy Research. https://doi.org/10.1080/10503307.2022.2130112
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kerry, R., Eriksen, T. E., Lie, S. A. N., Mumford, S. D., & Anjum, R. L. (2012). Causation and evidence-based practice. An ontological review. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, 18(5), 1006–1012. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2753.2012.01908.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kincaid, H. (2004). Contextualism, explanation and the social sciences. Philosophical Explorations, 7(3), 201–218. https://doi.org/10.1080/1386979045000258312
   Google Scholar
• Krause, M. S., & Lutz, W. (2009). Process transforms inputs to determine outcomes: Therapists are responsible for managing process. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 16(1), 73–81. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2850.2009.01146.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions. Second edition, enlarged. The University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kvale, S. (1996). Interviews. An introduction to qualitative research interviewing. Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Lambert, M. J. (2013). The efficacy and effectiveness of psychotherapy. In M. J. Lambert (Ed.), Bergin and garfield’s handbook of psychotherapy and behavior change. Sixth edition (pp. 169–218). Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Lampropoulos, G. K. (2000). A reexamination of the empirically supported treatments critiques. Psychotherapy Research, 10(4), 474–487. https://doi.org/10.1093/ptr/10.4.474
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Laska, K. M., Gurman, A. S., & Wampold, B. E. (2014). Expanding the lens of evidence-based practice in psychotherapy: A common factors perspective. Psychotherapy, 51(4), 467–481. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034332
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lawson, T. (1998). Economic science without experimentation. In M. Archer, R. Bhaskar, R. Collier, T. Lawson, & A. Norrie (Eds.), Critical realism: Essential readings (pp. 144–169). Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Leichsenring, F., Steinert, C., Rabung, S., & Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2022). The efficacy of psychotherapies and pharmacotherapies for mental disorders in adults: An umbrella review and meta-analytic evaluation of recent meta-analyses. World Psychiatry, 21(1), 133–145. https://doi.org/10.1002/wps.20941
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Levant, R. F. (2005). Report of the 2005 Presidential Task Force on Evidence-Based Practice, American Psychological Association. Retrieved May 2020 from https://www.apa.org/practice/resources/evidence/evidence-based-report.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Levitt, H. M. (2021). Qualitative generalization, not to the population but to the phenomenon: Reconceptualizing variation in qualitative research. Qualitative Psychology, 8(1), 95–110. https://doi.org/10.1037/qup0000184
   Google Scholar
• Lewis, D. (1973). Causation. The Journal of Philosophy, 70(17), 556–567. https://doi.org/10.2307/2025310
   Google Scholar
• Lindstad, T. G. (2020). The relevance of dispositionalism for psychotherapy and psychotherapy research. In R. L. Anjum, S. Copeland, & E. Rocca (Eds.), Rethinking causality, complexity and evidence for the unique patient (pp. 179–199). Springer Publ.
   Google Scholar
• Illari, P., & Russo, F. (2014). Causality: Philosophical theory meets scientific practice. Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Marmodoro, A. (2010). The metaphysics of powers (A. Marmodoro, ed.). Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Maxwell, J. A. (2004). Causal explanation, qualitative research, and scientific inquiry in education. Educational Researcher, 33(2), 3–11. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X033002003
   Google Scholar
• Maxwell, J. A. (2021). The importance of qualitative research for investigating causation. Qualitative Psychology, 8(3), 378–388. https://doi.org/10.1037/qup0000219
   Google Scholar
• Maxwell, J. A., & Chmiel, M. (2014). Generalization in and from qualitative analysis. In U. Flick (Ed.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative data analysis (pp. 540–553). SAGE.
   Google Scholar
• Meincke, A. S. (2020). Dispositionalism. Perspectives from metaphysics and the philosophy of science. (Ed.) synthese library 417. Springer Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Mumford, S., & Anjum, R. L. (2011). Getting causes from powers. Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Norcross, J. C., Beutler, L. E., & Levant, R. F. (eds.). (2013). Evidence-based practices in mental health. Debate and dialogue on the fundamental questions. American Psychological Association.
   Google Scholar
• Pawson, R. (2006). Evidence-based policy. A realist perspective. Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Philips, B., & Falkenström, F. (2020). What research evidence is valid for psychotherapy research? Front. Psychiatry, 11 January. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2020.625380
   Google Scholar
• Popper, K. (1959/2014). The logic of scientific discovery. Martino Fine Books.
   Google Scholar
• Popper, K. (1978). Three worlds. The Tanner Lecture on Human Values. Delivered at the University of Michigan April 7, 1978.
   Google Scholar
• Psillos, S. (2009). Regularity theories. In H. Beebe, C. Hitchcock, & P. Menzies (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of causation (pp. 131–157). Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Reiss, J. (2012). Causation in the sciences: An inferentialist account. Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, 43(4), 769–777. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsc.2012.05.005
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Reiss, J. (2015). A pragmatist theory of evidence. Philosophy of Science, 82(3), 341–362. https://doi.org/10.1086/681643
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rescher, N. (1993). Pluralism. Against the demand for consensus. Oxford.
   Google Scholar
• Richards, H. (2018). On the intransitive objects of the social (or human) sciences. Journal of Critical Realism, 17(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/14767430.2018.1426805
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rocca, E., & Anjum, R. L. (2020). Causal evidence and dispositions in medicine and public health. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(6), 1813. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17061813
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roth, P. A. (1987). Meaning and method in the social sciences: A case for methodological pluralism. Cornell University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Rothwell, P. M. (2005). External validity of randomised controlled trials: “to whom do the results of this trial apply?”. Lancet, 365(9453), 82–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(04)17670-8
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rothwell, P. M. (2006). Factors that can affect the external validity of randomised controlled trials. PLoS Clinical Trials, 1, e9. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pctr.0010009
   Google Scholar
• Russo, F., & Williamson, J. (2007). Interpreting causality in the health sciences. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 21(2), 157–170. https://doi.org/10.1080/02698590701498084
   Google Scholar
• Sandelowski, M., & Leeman, J. (2012). Writing usable qualitative health research findings. Qualitative Health Research, 22(10), 1404–1413. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732312450368
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shadish, W. R., Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (2002). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference. Houghton Mifflin.
   Google Scholar
• Slife, B. D., & Gantt, E. E. (1999). Methodological pluralism: A framework of psychotherapy research. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 55(12), 1453–1465. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-4679(199912)55:12<1453::AID-JCLP4>3.0.CO;2-C
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smedslund, J. (2015). The value of experiments in psychology. In J. Martin, J. Slugarman, & K. Slaney (Eds.), The wiley handbook of theoretical and philosophical psychology: Methods, approaches, and New directions for social sciences (pp. 359–373). Wiley-Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Smith, K., McLeod, J., Blunden, N., Cooper, M., Gabriel, L., Kupfer, C., McLeod, J., Murphie, M.-C., Oddli, H. W., Thurston, M., & Winter, L. A. (2021). A pluralistic perspective on research in psychotherapy: Harnessing passion, difference and dialogue to promote justice and relevance. Frontiers in Psychology, 12. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.742676
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stänicke & McLeod (2021). Paradoxical outcomes in psychotherapy: Theoretical perspectives, research agenda and practice implications. European Journal of Psychotherapy & Counselling, 23(2), 115–138. https://doi.org/10.1080/13642537.2021.1923050
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stiles, W. B. (2009a). Logical operations in theory-building case studies. Pragmatic Case Studies in Psychotherapy, 5(3), 9–22. http://jrul.libraries.rutgers.edu/index.php/pcsp/article/view/973/2384. https://doi.org/10.14713/pcsp.v5i3.973
   Google Scholar
• Stiles, W. B. (2009b). Responsiveness as an obstacle for psychotherapy outcome research: It’s worse than you think. Clinical Psychology, 16, 86–91. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2850.2009.01148.x
   Google Scholar
• Stiles, W. B. (2015). Theory building, enriching, and fact gathering: Alternative purposes of psychotherapy research. In O. Gelo, A. Pritz, & B. Rieken (Eds.), Psychotherapy research. Foundations, process, and outcome (pp. 159–179). Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Strauss. A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research. Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (2nd ed.). SAGE.
   Google Scholar
• Talley, P. F., Strupp, H. H., & Butler, S. F. (eds.). (1994). Psychotherapy research and practice: Bridging the gap. Basic Books.
   Google Scholar
• Valsiner, J., & Brinkmann, S. (2016). Beyond the “variables”: developing metalanguage for psychology. In S. H. Klempe, & R. Smith (Eds.), Centrality of history for theory construction in psychology, annals of theoretical psychology 14 (pp. 75–90). Springer.
   Google Scholar
• von Wright, G. H. (1971). Explanation and understanding. Cornell University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Wampold, B. E. (2001). The great psychotherapy debate. Models, Methods, and Findings. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
   Google Scholar
• Wampold, B. E., & Imel, Z. E. (2015). The great psychotherapy debate. The evidence for what makes psychotherapy work. Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Wampold, B. E., & Owen, J. (2021). Therapist effects: History, methods, magnitude, and characteristics of effective therapists. In M. Barkham, W. Lutz, & L. G. Castonguay (Eds.), Bergin and garfield’s handbook of psychotherapy and behavior change. 50th anniversary edition (pp. 297–326). Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Williamson, J. (2013). How can causal explanations explain? Erkenntnis, 78(S2), 257–275. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10670-013-9512-x
   Google Scholar
• Woodward, J. (2003). Making things happen: A theory of causal explanation. Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Woodward, J. (2009). Agency and interventionist theories (2009). In H. Beebe, C. Hitchcock, & P. Menzies (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of causation (pp. 234–262). Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar