The empirically supported treatment and common-factors rnovements each offer a .framework for evidence-based practice. However, neither framework is sufficiently objective or inclusive; rather, they are based on unexamined conceptions of evidence that commit pre-investigatory biases against certain types of methods and practices. An EST framework is built upon unexamined medical-model assumptions of evidence that are biased toward specific treatments based on randomized controlled (or clinical) trials (RCTs}; thus, it fails to consider viable non-medical-model research methods and types of practice. Analogously, the common-factors movement, which has influenced a recent American Psychological Association (APA) policy on evidence-based practice, is built upon unexamined empiricist assumptions of evidence that are biased toward sensory observable criteria of evidence; thus, it fails to consider non-empirical methods and practices (e.g., qualitative research). A third framework, objective methodological pluralism (OMP), avoids the biases of the Jim two frameworks and is better suited for providing the objectivity and diversity needed for evidence-based practice.
"Evidence-Based Practice Movements in Psychology: Empirically Supported Treatments, Common Factors, and Objective Methodological Pluralism,"
Intuition: The BYU Undergraduate Journal of Psychology: Vol. 2:
1, Article 8.
Available at: https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/intuition/vol2/iss1/8