Wampold Bruce E, Goodheart Carol D, Levant Ronald F
University of Wisconsin, Department of Counseling Psychology, Madison, WI 53706, USA.
Am Psychol. 2007 Sep;62(6):616-8. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X62.6.616.
Responds to comments by D. C. Wendt and B. D. Slife, P. H. Hunsberger, and R. B. Stuart and S. O. Lilienfeld regarding the report by the APA Presidential Task Force on Evidence-Based Practice entitled Evidence-based practice in psychology. The goal of the task force was to create a scheme that would suggest how evidence should be used to design and offer services that will benefit patients and to assure the public and the health care system that psychologists are providing evidence-based services. There were and will continue to be many scientific and philosophical issues inherent in any such enterprise, and agreement by all psychologists with every aspect of EBPP may not be possible. Nevertheless, the APA's EBPP policy and the report that accompanied it are remarkably inclusive of various perspectives while remaining unambiguous about the need to use evidence in a way that leads to effective services. What is needed at this point are clinically relevant evidence and investigations of how such evidence can be used to best benefit those served by psychological interventions.
回应了D. C. 温特、B. D. 斯利夫、P. H. 洪斯伯格、R. B. 斯图尔特以及S. O. 利连菲尔德就美国心理学会主席特别工作组关于《心理学中的循证实践》报告的评论。特别工作组的目标是创建一个方案,该方案将建议如何利用证据来设计和提供对患者有益的服务,并向公众和医疗保健系统保证心理学家正在提供循证服务。在任何此类事业中,过去存在且将继续存在许多固有的科学和哲学问题,所有心理学家对循证实践心理学的各个方面达成一致可能是不可能的。然而,美国心理学会的循证实践心理学政策及其附带的报告在显著包容各种观点的同时,对于以能带来有效服务的方式使用证据的必要性仍保持明确态度。此时所需要的是临床相关证据以及关于如何利用此类证据使心理干预服务对象获得最大益处的研究。