Charles M. Boisvert

Practicing Psychologists' Knowledge of General Psychotherapy Research Findings: Implications for Science-Practice Relations

If you are a therapist, how knowledgeable are you and how knowledgeable do you need to be about psychotherapy research findings? In this study, the authors examined practicing psychologists’ knowledge of general psychotherapy research findings. Results revealed that some psychologists showed excellent familiarity with this body of outcome research, but many did not achieve this standard. Not infrequently, psychologists believed that research findings were less positive than is actually the case, perhaps explaining some of the negativity that practitioners sometimes express toward psychotherapy research. Research knowledge could not be predicted by years graduated, percentage of long-term clients, percentage of time conducting therapy, theoretical orientation, or perceived familiarity with research. The modest familiarity with research findings that therapists, in general, demonstrated may be understood, in part, through examination of the acquisition of research knowledge as a judgment task. The authors explore potential factors that may influence therapists’ judgments about the research. In addition, they examine possible relations between research knowledge and therapy outcome and their potential practice implications.

Leading researchers' consensus on psychotherapy research findings: Implications for the teaching and conduct of psychotherapy

We examined leading international psychotherapy researchers’ views on psychotherapy outcome research. Participants completed a questionnaire on which they rated level of research evidence for or against various assertions about psychotherapy processes and outcomes. Participants rated how confident they were that the assertions were supported by psychotherapy research. Strong, or relatively strong, consensus was achieved on several of the questionnaire items. Areas for which relative uniformity of opinion does or does not exist have potential implications for the teaching and conduct of psychotherapy and for the science–practice interface in psychotherapy. Additionally, consensus about psychotherapy findings can be used as a yardstick by which to measure practicing clinicians’ knowledge of the research. In 1949 at the Boulder Conference, the profession of clinical psychology declared its allegiance to the goal of integrating science and practice and cast the field in the “scientist–practitioner model,” or the Boulder Model (Raimy, 1950). Additionally, at the Vail Conference in 1973, the profession of clinical psychology addressed the science–practice interface but endorsed a “professional model” of training focused on practitioner training issues and psychologists as consumers and users of research (Korman, 1974). Both the Boulder and Vail Conferences emphasized the knowledge and use of psychological research in clinical practice. A central mission of the profession of psychology was to accumulate scientific knowledge in order to advance the understanding

Using computers as visual aids to enhance communication in therapy

Abstract Using computers as surrogate therapists and to provide cognitive stimulation through, for example, computer exercises or activities is widely reported in the computer-assisted therapy literature. We, however, present a computer-assisted therapy technique, which primarily aims to enhance communication by visually representing the client’s spoken words via the computer’s word processor. Through this technique therapists can facilitate communication with clients and increase the likelihood of clients engaging in a reality-based discussion or engaging in a more focused discussion. Clients can also use handouts from the sessions to reinforce therapy goals. This therapy technique seems well suited for persons with schizophrenia or behaviorally disordered adolescents who may have difficulties with auditory processing or in communicating through the verbal modality, which is often required in a typical verbal mediated therapy session. We believe that clinicians within the context of their clinical practice can readily adopt this method of computer-facilitated therapy. However, the technique needs to be validated through further field-testing and controlled studies.