In contemporary psychosocial treatment research, the test of the efficacy of standardized treatment manuals predominates in respectability relative to naturalistic research on the process components of flexible treatments, though the latter strategy is necessary for the empirical identification of effective process components. Standardizing a treatment constrains the variance of process variables and, thereby, attenuates the manifestation of potential correlations. Research is reviewed, providing evidence for several unexpected deleterious or moderating effects of utilizing standardized treatment manuals. We conclude that naturalistic research using flexible treatments is necessary for making the development of treatment manuals, and their modification, a truly scientific process.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Gaston et al. (1996) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: