Implementation of Evidence-Based Practice Precepts in Psychotherapy and Recommendations for Research and Practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This brief report addresses the attitudes of psychotherapy providers and North American psychology regulatory leaders toward evidence-based practice (EBP) precepts as applied to their psychotherapy practices. Secondary descriptive analyses of a two-phase survey concerning these attitudes of Canadian psychotherapy providers (n = 684) and psychology regulatory leaders (n = 32) were undertaken to inform the perceived utility and implementation of EBP precepts within psychotherapy practices. Results indicated that while there is general agreement among attitudes toward EBP precepts as applied to the routine clinical practices of psychotherapy providers and leaders, they are nuanced depending on the EBP tenet in question. Results are situated within the extant empirical literature on the EBP of psychotherapy in particular and of psychology more broadly, with recommendations for future research provided. While the zeitgeist is alive and well for the uptake of EBP in psychotherapy practice, important challenges remain for its advancement and implementation.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.380 | 0.513 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.020 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.014 | 0.016 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".