Advertisement

The Social Production of Evidence in Psychology: A Case Study of the APA Task Force on Evidence-Based Practice

  • Nathalie Lovasz
  • Joshua W. Clegg
Chapter
Part of the Palgrave Studies in the Theory and History of Psychology book series (PSTHP)

Abstract

Evidence-based practice (EBP) has become a general gatekeeping discourse in psychology (as elsewhere), a designation that confers legitimacy on the policies and practices that can claim it. The various political negotiations that establish such legitimacy also deploy, contest, and, to some degree, stabilize the notion of “evidence”, and so become the ideological and material arbiters of the concept. In this chapter, we discuss this social production of “evidence”, focusing on the American Psychological Association task force on EBP as a case study. Drawing on archival materials from the task force proceedings, original interviews with task force participants (collected by the first author), as well as on the published report and other related materials, we trace how the category of “evidence” is shaped through the negotiation of epistemic, political, practical, and interpersonal considerations. This analysis highlights what has always been true in both psychology and science more generally—namely, that what evidence “is” cannot be separated from how it is deployed within the networks of influence that both arbitrate and are arbitrated by it.

References

  1. American Psychological Association. (2004). Presidential task force on evidence based practice task force charge. Unpublished document.Google Scholar
  2. American Psychological Association. (2005a). Council item: Policy recommendation and position paper of the 2005 presidential task force on evidence-based practice. Unpublished document.Google Scholar
  3. American Psychological Association. (2005b). Spring consolidated meeting agenda item. Unpublished document. Google Scholar
  4. American Psychological Association. (2006a). Policy statement on evidence-based practice in psychology. American Psychologist, 61, 271–285.Google Scholar
  5. American Psychological Association. (2006b). Guidelines and principles for accreditation of programs in professional psychology (G&P). Retrieved from http://www.apa.org/ed/accreditation/about/policies/guiding-principles.pdf.
  6. Bearman, S. K., Wadkins, M., Bailin, A., & Doctoroff, G. (2015). Pre-practicum training in professional psychology to close the research-practice gap: Changing attitudes toward evidence-based practice. Training and Education in Professional Psychology, 9(1), 13–20.  https://doi.org/10.1037/tep0000052.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. Beck, J. G., Castonguay, L. G., Chronis-Tuscano, A., Klonsky, E. D., McGinn, L. K., & Youngstrom, E. A. (2014). Principles for training in evidence-based psychology: Recommendations for the graduate curricula in clinical psychology. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 21(4), 410–424.  https://doi.org/10.1111/cpsp.12079.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Canadian Psychological Association. (2011). Accreditation standards and procedures for doctoral programmes and internships in professional psychology (Fifth revision). Retrieved from https://www.cpa.ca/docs/File/Accreditation/Accreditation_2011.pdf.
  9. Canadian Psychological Association. (2012). Evidence-based practice of psychological treatments: A Canadian perspective. Retrieved from https://cpa.ca/docs/File/Practice/Report_of_the_EBP_Task_Force_FINAL_Board_Approved_2012.pdf.
  10. Chambless, D. L., Sanderson, W. C., Shoham, V., Bennett Johnson, S., Pope, K. S., Crits-Christoph, P., … McCurry, S. (1996). An update on empirically validated therapies. The Clinical Psychologist, 49, 5–18.Google Scholar
  11. Dobson, K. S. (2016). Clinical psychology in Canada: Challenges and opportunities. Canadian Psychology/Psychologie Canadienne, 57(3), 211–219.  https://doi.org/10.1037/cap0000061.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Eddy, D. M. (2005). Evidence-based medicine: A unified approach. Health Affairs (Project Hope), 24(1), 9–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Forman, E. M., Gaudiano, B. A., & Herbert, J. D. (2016). Pragmatic recommendations to address challenges in disseminating evidenced-based treatment guidelines. Canadian Psychology/Psychologie Canadienne, 57(3), 160–171.  https://doi.org/10.1037/cap0000054.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Foster, E. (2015). Rivals or roomates? The relationship between evidence-based practice and practice-based evidence in studies of Anorexia Nervosa. Counselling Psychology Review, 30(4), 34–42.Google Scholar
  15. Guyatt, G. H., Oxman, A. D., Vist, G. E., Kunz, R., Falck-Ytter, Y., Alonso-Coello, P., … The GRADE Working Group. (2008). GRADE: An emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. British Medical Journal, 336, 924–926. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.39489.470347.
  16. La Roche, M. J., & Christopher, M. S. (2009). Changing paradigms from empirically supported treatment to evidence-based practice: A cultural perspective. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 40(4), 396–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Levant, R. F. (2005). Evidence-based practice in psychology. Monitor on Psychology, 26(2), 5.Google Scholar
  18. Levant, R. F., & Hasan, N. T. (2008). Evidence-based practice in psychology. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 39(6), 658–662.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Levant, R. F., & Sperry, H. A. (2016). Components of evidence-based practice in psychology. In N. Zane, G. Bernal, F. L. Leong, N. Zane, G. Bernal, & F. L. Leong (Eds.), Evidence-based psychological practice with ethnic minorities: Culturally informed research and clinical strategies (pp. 15–29). Washington, DC, USA: American Psychological Association.  https://doi.org/10.1037/14940-002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lilienfeld, S. O., Ritschel, L. A., Lynn, S. J., Cautin, R. L., & Latzman, R. D. (2013). Why many clinical psychologists are resistant to evidence-based practice: Root causes and constructive remedies. Clinical Psychology Review, 33(7), 883–900.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2012.09.008.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Meehl, P. E. (1954). Clinical versus statistical prediction: A theoretical analysis and a review of the evidence. Minneapolis, USA: University of Minnesota Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Messer, S. (2004). Evidence-based practice: Beyond empirically supported treatments. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 35(6), 580–588.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. McGrew, J. H., Ruble, L. A., & Smith, I. M. (2016). Autism spectrum disorder and evidence-based practice in psychology. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 23(3), 239–255.  https://doi.org/10.1111/cpsp.12160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Rousseau, D. M., & Gunia, B. C. (2016). Evidence-based practice: The psychology of EBP implementation. Annual Review of Psychology, 67667–67692.  https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-122414-033336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Sackett, D. L. (2000). Evidence‐based medicine. Wiley StatsRef: Statistics Reference Online.Google Scholar
  26. Stewart, R. E., Chambless, D. L., & Stirman, S. W. (2018). Decision making and the use of evidence-based practice: Is the three-legged stool balanced? Practice Innovations, 3(1), 56–67.  https://doi.org/10.1037/pri0000063.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Thomason, T. C. (2010). The trend toward evidence-based practice and the future of psychotherapy. American Journal of Psychotherapy, 64(1), 29–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Wampold, B. E., Goodheart, C. D., & Levant, R. (2007). Clarification and elaboration on evidence-based practice in psychology. American Psychologist, 62, 616–618.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nathalie Lovasz
    • 1
  • Joshua W. Clegg
    • 2
  1. 1.Toronto DBT CentreTorontoCanada
  2. 2.John Jay College and the Graduate CenterCUNYNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations