title: Reservations about the conclusions of the interdivisional (APA Divisions 12 & 29) task force on evidence-based therapy relationships: what do we know, what don't we know?
abstract: We offer a critical and constructive appraisal of the conclusions provided by the Interdivisional (American Psychological Association [APA] Divisions 12 & 29) Task Force on Evidence-Based Therapy Relationships. We highlight problems in overlapping terminology and definitions, as well as problems in the conduct of its meta-analyses (i.e., duplication of studies between reviews, inappropriate study inclusion, and use of measures of specific constructs for the calculation of effects for multiple relationship elements). On this basis, we express reservation about the conclusions offered by the APA Task Force. This special issue explores whether there are other therapeutic relationship elements that warrant consideration and further study. We were particularly interested in those elements that showed promise based on empirical or theoretical grounds, and in each article, we asked for an account of how the case formulation would guide the methods of adaptation for each individual client, and how the element would contribute to clinically relevant changes.
authors: Monash University, Australia.
authors: Nikolaos
authors: N
authors: Kazantzis
authors: Timothy J
authors: TJ
authors: Cronin
authors: Peter J
authors: PJ
authors: Norton
authors: Jerry
authors: J
authors: Lai
authors: Stefan G
authors: SG
authors: Hofmann
mesh_terms: D055317:Evidence-Based Practice / Q000592:standards*; D006801:Humans; D015201:Meta-Analysis as Topic; D011369:Professional-Patient Relations; D011613:Psychotherapy / Q000592:standards*; D012958:Societies, Scientific / Q000592:standards
keywords: alliance; evidence-based practice; meta-analysis; psychotherapy relationship; treatment outcome