SynthesisIntegrative psychological & behavioral science2020
Which Methodological Practice(s) for Psychotherapy Science? A Systematic Review and a Proposal.
Synthesis in Integrative psychological & behavioral science, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 13 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
13 citing papers in PubMed.
- Relational skills and self-awareness outcomes in psychotherapy trainees.Research in psychotherapy (Milano) · 2026Article
- Personality, Emotion Regulation, and Psychological Distress in Italian Women with Feeding and Eating Disorders: A Cross-Sectional Study.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Psychotherapy for complex post-traumatic stress disorder: efficacy and therapeutic factors.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Review
- The strategic distraction motive: addiction as attentional regulation under perceived insolubility.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Article
- Specific and common therapeutic factors in psychodynamic psychotherapy for children and adolescents: an overview.Frontiers in psychology · 2025Review
- Pattern formation, ruptures, and repairs in treatments of personality disorders: an idiographic case series study.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2025Article
- Clinical Questions and Psychological Change: How Can Artificial Intelligence Support Mental Health Practitioners?Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- The Therapeutic Relationship in Videoconferencing Psychotherapy: A Qualitative Study of Therapists' Experiences.Clinical neuropsychiatry · 2024Article
- The Role of Safety in Change-Promoting Therapeutic Relationships: An Integrative Relational Approach.Clinical neuropsychiatry · 2024Article
- Therapists' defense use impacts their patients' defensive functioning: a systematic case study.Research in psychotherapy (Milano) · 2024Article
- The Psychodynamic Approach During COVID-19 Emotional Crisis.Frontiers in psychology · 2021Article
- A systematic review of psychotherapy research topics (2000-2016): a computer-assisted approach.Research in psychotherapy (Milano) · 2019Article
- The Use of Routine Outcome Monitoring in Clinical Supervision: A Scoping Review of Empirical Evidence.Clinical psychology & psychotherapyArticle
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Three main methodological practices have been employed in psychotherapy science: the empirical-quantitative, empirical-qualitative, and theoretical one. Some scholars have argued for a monopoly of the empirical-quantitative methodological practice, sustained by scientific monism. This systematic review aims at exploring the contribution of each methodological practice to the field. Fifteen journals were searched from 2003 to 2013. A total of 9796 publications and 9915 studies met inclusion criteria and were coded for the methodological practice employed. Empirical-quantitative studies were the most published overall, over time, and in most of the journals considered. This overwhelming prevalence increased when considering the citation rates of the publications. We argue that these results are indicative of a quantitative monopoly, which in turn is due to a lack of critical thinking sustaining scientific monism. We call for disciplinary critical thinking and the consequent scientific pluralism valuing the plurality, diversity, and multiplicity of all the existing methodological practices.
Indexed as
Identifiers
31240561What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.