Should we allow psychotherapy research to determine clinical practice?

We address some of the objections, raised by Garfield and others, to the sarong application of outcome research to psychotherapy practice. We argue that while Garfield has offered strong arguments for each of these objections, they do not amount to a sufficient case against the radical application of outcome research. We describe an alternative model for the integration of psychotherapy research with clinical procedures, in which the effective clinical service rests on research findings, professional consensus based on training and continuing education, evidence-based systematic practice, and monitoring of service delivery and outcomes. This close collaboration between outcome researchers and clinicians would, we believe, enrich the work of both, and the field of psychotherapy as a whole.