Controversies in psychotherapy research: Epistemic differences in assumptions about human psychology

Abstract

It is the thesis of this paper that differences in philosophical assumptions about the subject matter and treatment methods of psychotherapy have contributed to disagreements about the external validity of empirically supported therapies (ESTs). These differences are evident in the theories that are the basis for both the design and interpretation of recent psychotherapy efficacy studies. The natural science model, as applied to psychotherapy outcome research, transforms the constitutive features of the study subject in a reciprocal manner so that problems, treatments, and indicators of effectiveness are limited to what can be directly observed. Meaning-based approaches to therapy emphasize processes and changes that do not lend themselves to experimental study. Hermeneutic philosophy provides a supplemental model to establishing validity in those instances where outcome indicators do not lend themselves to direct observation and measurement and require "deep" interpretation. Hermeneutics allows for a broadening of psychological study that allows one to establish a form of validity that is applicable when constructs do not refer to things that literally "exist" in nature. From a hermeneutic perspective the changes that occur in meaning-based therapies must be understood and evaluated on the manner in which they are applied to new situations, the logical ordering and harmony of the parts with the theoretical whole, and the capability of convincing experts and patients that the interpretation can stand up against other ways of understanding. Adoption of this approach often is necessary to competently evaluate the effectiveness of meaning-based therapies.