Alternative Methodologies in Research Literature Review: Links Between Clinical Work and MFT Effectiveness
clinical work, MFT effectiveness
Traditionally, "good outcome research" has referred to laboratory-based, controlled studies that report the efficacy of a given treatment on a specific population. Although useful and needed in the struggle to establish MFTs as accepted mental health service providers, this type of research does not address whether MFT is effective in "real world" settings. In order to highlight the clinical and professional relevance of existing effectiveness research, this article reviews 15 years of clinical research in three major family therapy journals. The results suggest that 1) MFT effectiveness is under-represented in major review articles, 2) clinicians can use a variety of methodologies to establish the effectiveness of their work, and 3) more research is needed that investigates how and why MFT works in "real world" settings. Implications for practice and future research are discussed.
Original Publication Citation
Addison, S. M., Sandberg, J. G., Corby, J., Robila, M., & Platt, J. (2002). Alternative methodologies in research literature review: Links between clinical work and MFT effectiveness. American Journal of Family Therapy, 30, 339-371.
BYU ScholarsArchive Citation
Addison, Sheila M.; Sandberg, Jonathan G.; Corby, Joy; Robila, Mihaela; and Platt, Jason J., "Alternative Methodologies in Research Literature Review: Links Between Clinical Work and MFT Effectiveness" (2010). Faculty Publications. 2435.
The American Journal of Family Therapy
Family, Home, and Social Sciences
Copyright © 2002 Brunner-Routledge