The , immature perhaps, but a science. A discipline that accumulates behind it a very extensive body of knowledge, which it has acquired over the years through a series of procedures such as standardized observation, data analysis and the description of psychological phenomena. Its intention is to formulate hypotheses or explanations about the origin and nature of these phenomena, and in this way to be able to make predictions and changes based on objectives established in advance.
With the passage of time, psychology has been placed in its rightful place with respect to recognition as a health profession and as a scientific discipline. But as I said before, she is immature, she needs to move forward with firm and solid steps. To do this, it is necessary that all of its theories or explanatory models (which unfortunately) as well as the treatments and intervention techniques related to each model be subjected to rigorous and intense scientific scrutiny. This is where Evidence-Based Psychology (EBP) comes in, but what exactly is BPE?
What evidence-based psychology is
Evidence-based psychology is a methodological model, a series of procedures that aim to legitimize treatments, techniques and theories (regardless of their orientation or model) that present sufficient quality empirical evidence to support their results. Its practice involves integrating the experience of the professional (clinical judgment) with the best evidence obtained from systematic research.
The professional who supports EBP acquires a double commitment. The first is to know what the best empirical evidence available is. This implies the need for constant updating and consultation of reliable, adequate and rigorous sources. And second, only select the psychological treatment or technique that has been shown to have the best evidence of its effect. Given equal conditions, it will choose the shortest or easiest to apply (principle of parsimony). The professional cannot, under any circumstances, base his professional practice only on his personal experience without having scientific evidence to support its practical application and decision-making. That is, “it works for me” or “it works for my patients”
Without further ado, it implies the violation of article 18 of the code of ethics.
If you value articles like this, consider supporting us by becoming a Pro subscriber. Subscribers enjoy access to members-only articles, materials, and webinars.
The practice of Evidence-Based Clinical Psychology has, in essence, the same foundations as where it gets its name from. Clarify that in Spanish there is a debate about whether the translation of the term “Evidence Based Medicine” would actually be “Evidence Based Medicine”, since the term evidence can have a somewhat “” connotation rather than a scientific one of clear certainty. The word “tests” has an interpretation more related to experimentation, more “scientific”. The debate is still open.
EBP is the clearest manifestation of methodological skepticism in psychology. It can be summarized in the fact that those who practice EBP doubt any claim that is not supported by sufficient and relevant evidence. What is intended, in the long term, is that models, theories or treatments whose foundations are not duly proven do not proliferate. But also control and prevent any theory, model or idea related to psychology, no matter how unfounded, from having the same scientific status as theories that have been well tested. Above all, so as not to further complicate the professionals who are practicing as is currently the case.
What evidence-based psychology is not
An ivory tower where the absolute truth of psychology is protected. Absolute truth cannot be achieved by scientific evidence, nor is it intended. The study of reality is always accompanied by a significant degree of uncertainty. The psychologist who supports EBP has to have his “mind open” to change (without his brain falling to the ground) backed by scientific research.
Not all studies are EBP. A common mistake is to find the defense of a treatment because “a study says that.” The quality of the evidence in a study is directly related to the type of research design used in it. So you have to be careful. We have to know how to discriminate the quality of the methodology used, hence the methodological skepticism I spoke of before.
It is not a perfect methodology nor does it exclude other variables in therapy.. But it is the best orientation to advance psychological knowledge about the effect of clinical intervention. Logically, the evidence found would not be useful if it ended up in the hands of a psychologist without therapeutic skills or minimal knowledge of prior diagnosis, since he would make basic errors in the intervention.
It is not a guarantee of good professional practice. Performing clinical intervention without knowing the scientific evidence will make our professional practice obsolete and may put the health or resources of our patients at risk. But equally, relying on the best evidence without clinical experience is risky. The quality of the professional is based on two basic pillars: truthful and rigorous knowledge, and experience.
The idea is that psychological treatments that meet the requirements derived from this system or model are the first choice treatments in public services and private health centers. To do this, a basic knowledge of what the scientific method and its methodology is is necessary. If as a psychologist you doubt the veracity of a study, you can always go to the . Let us not forget that clinical and health psychologists do not decide what treatment to apply to our patients, specialists already take care of that. We must take care of choosing and applying the treatment in the best possible way.
If we want psychology to be consolidated as a science, we must do the most difficult and thankless of all tasks within the profession: sifting through what is effective, effective and efficient from what is not in our professional practice. And this is where our personal opinion and beliefs do not matter, as Holbach said, every debate, of any kind, ethical or moral, should always start from scientific facts. From here, let’s talk.
You may also like:
Image:
Bibliography:
- Chambless, D.L. Baker, M.J.; Baucom, D.H.; Beutler, L.E.; Calhoun, K.S.; Crits-Christoph, P.; Daiuto, A.; deRubeis, R.; Detweiler, J.; Make, DAF; Johnson, S.B.; McCurry, S.; Mueser, K.T. Pope, K.S.; Sanderson, W.C.; Shoham, V.; Stickle, T.; Williams, D.A.; & Woody, S. R. (1998). An update on empirically validated therapies II. The Clinical Psychologist, 51, 3-16.
- Chambless, D.L. & Hollon, S. (1998). Defining empirically-supported therapies. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 66, 7.18.
- Echeburúa et al., (2010). Evidence-based psychological therapies: Limitations and future challenges.
- Frías, M. and Pascual, J. (2003). Evidence-based clinical psychology: Treatment effect. Papers of the Psychologist, 85, 11-18.
- Sackett, D.L.; Rosenberg, W. M. C., Gray, J. A. M. & Richardson, W. S. (1996). Evidence based medicine. What it is and what it isn’t. British Medical Journal, 312, 71-72.