title: Implications of a moderated common factors approach: does it move the field forward?
abstract: There are a number of similarities between the moderated common factors proposal of Sprenkle and Blow (this issue) and the multilevel, process-based therapeutic change presentation of Sexton, Ridley, and Kleiner (this issue). Despite these areas of agreement there are fundamental differences in our respective positions. We suspect that these differences are not unique to the respective authors, but instead represent the current debate in the field regarding common factors. In this commentary, we discuss what we think are important issues to have emerged from these articles. Our hope is that the issues we present below will take the debate and discussion one step further.
authors.affiliation: Department of Counseling and Educational Psychology, Indiana University, 201 N. Rose Ave., Bloomington, Indiana 47405, USA. thsexton@indiana.edu
authors.forename: Thomas L
authors.initials: TL
authors.lastname: Sexton
authors.forename: Charles R
authors.initials: CR
authors.lastname: Ridley
mesh_terms: D001291:Attitude of Health Personnel; D015982:Bias; D002983:Clinical Competence / Q000592:standards*; D004059:Diffusion of Innovation; D005196:Family Therapy / Q000379:methods / Q000592:standards; D006801:Humans; D008388:Marital Therapy / Q000379:methods / Q000592:standards; D017063:Outcome Assessment, Health Care; D011369:Professional-Patient Relations; D012107:Research Design; D014481:United States