Please wait a minute...
Acta Psychologica Sinica    2017, Vol. 49 Issue (6) : 841-852     DOI: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2017.00841
 Four questions on “evidence” in evidence-based practice in psychotherapy
 YANG Wendeng1,3; LI Xiaomiao2; ZHANG Xiaoyuan3
 (1 The Center for the Psychology and Brain Science, Guangzhou University, Guangzhou 510006, China) (2 Department of Psychology, University of Calgary, Calgary T2N1N4, Canada) (3 Department of Psychology, School of Public Health, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou 510515, China)
Download: PDF(450 KB)   Review File (1 KB) 
Export: BibTeX | EndNote | Reference Manager | ProCite | RefWorks     Supporting Info
Abstract   Few topics in psychotherapy are as controversial as evidence-based practices (EBP). Certain members of the general public and sometimes even professionals use the term “evidence-based” as a form of rhetoric. They reframe the definition of “evidence” in favor of their particular understanding of psychotherapy. This paper focuses on four fundamental questions about the evidence obtained in EBP in psychotherapy, trying to show the multiple framings of “evidence”. 1. Why does psychotherapy have to be based on evidence? This challenges have been present throughout the development of psychotherapy- initially in the Royal Commission’s investigation of Franz Mesmer’s animal magnetism in 1874; then Hans Eysenck’s doubts about the efficacy of psychotherapy in 1952; and in the 1980 s, the requirement of accountability and managed care in health care and the competition between psychotherapy and psychotropic drugs. With the emergence of empirically supported treatment and EBP, the challenges for psychotherapy continue. Psychotherapy must be shown to be based on evidence, and is often compared to pharmacotherapy implicitly or explicitly. Evidence for efficacy is one of the most important contributions to support and boost the development of psychotherapy. Theoretically, the role of EBP in the social sciences is similar to that of “engineering practice” in the natural sciences. Contemporary risk, audit and information strategies add to the weight of the importance of evidence. 2. What types of evidence are there? EBP’s evidence can be classified into different types, including research-based evidence and practice-based evidence; scientific evidence and local evidence; impact evidence, implementation evidence, attitudinal evidence, economic evidence, and ethical evidence; research-based, manualized, guidelines, standards, principles, databases, and so on. All researchers, practitioners, managers, and even patients are qualified to produce different kinds of evidence. 3. Which type of evidence is the best? EBP does presume that, for a given question, some available evidence may be of better quality than other evidence. Research evidence is one critical — yet not the only — contributor to EBP. Other situational information, stakeholder’s concerns, and practitioner’s experiences are also beneficial to EBP. There is no single criterion for evaluating all forms of evidence. Different types of evidence are meant to solve different questions. The best standard of assessing the quality of evidence is the degree to which the evidence can solve the real problems in real contexts. 4. How is evidence used? EBP consists of mature implementation strategies such as “AAA TIE” (Asking, Accessing, Appraising, Translating, Integrating and Evaluating). It provides an accessible way to apply the evidence to clinical situations. However, some factors, including representativeness of samples, sources of funding, and researchers’ theoretical allegiance create limitations to the process of evidence dissemination. New research designs such as practice-oriented research, trans-diagnostic and trans-treatment research, as well as cultural benchmarking research are all important means to producing more evidence that would suit the needs of practitioners.
Keywords  psychotherapy      evidence-based practice      evidence      empirically supported treatment      evidence- based psychotherapy     
Corresponding Authors: ZHANG Xiaoyuan, E-mail:     E-mail: E-mail:
Just Accepted Date: 27 April 2017  
E-mail this article
E-mail Alert
Articles by authors
YANG Wendeng
LI Xiaomiao
ZHANG Xiaoyuan
Cite this article:   
YANG Wendeng,LI Xiaomiao,ZHANG Xiaoyuan.  Four questions on “evidence” in evidence-based practice in psychotherapy[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2017, 49(6): 841-852.
URL:     OR
[1] ZHANG Bao, HU Cenlou, CHEN Yanzhang, MIAO Sumei, HUANG Sai.  The modulation of working memory load and perceptual load on attentional guidance from representations of working memory[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2017, 49(8): 1009-1021.
[2] WANG Pei, CHEN Qingwei, TANG Xiaochen, LUO Junlong, TAN Chenhao, GAO Fan.  The situational primacy of Chinese individual self, relational self, collective self: Evidence from ERP[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2017, 49(8): 1072-1079.
[3] SHEN Yimo, CHOU Wanju, WEI Lihua, ZHANG Qinglin.  Benevolent leadership and subordinate innovative behavior: The mediating role of perceived insider status and the moderating role of leader-member exchange differentiation[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2017, 49(8): 1100-1112.
[4] SONG Xiaolei, ZHANG Junting, SHI Jie, YOU Xuqun.  Influence of emotional valence on the spatial simon effect under the vocal response mode[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2017, 49(8): 1031-1040.
[5] ZHANG Yuzhi, ZHANG Jijia.  The effects of neighborhood size and category consistency of the semantic radical on semantic radical’s semantic activation under radical priming paradigm[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2017, 49(8): 1041-1052.
[6] HAN Meng, MAO Xinrui, CAI Mengtong, JIA Xi, GUO Chunyan.  The effect of positive and negative signs on the SNARC effect in the magnitude judgment task[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2017, 49(8): 995-1008.
[7] FU Yilei, LUO Yuejia, CUI Fang.  Consistency of choice modulates outcome evaluation: Evidence from ERP studies[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2017, 49(8): 1089-1099.
[8] WANG Haizhong, FAN Xiaowen, OUYANG Jianying.  Consumer self-construal, need of uniqueness and preference of brand logo shape[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2017, 49(8): 1113-1124.
[9] WANG Yiwen, FU Chao, REN Xiangfeng, LIN Yuzhong, GUO Fengbo.  Narcissistic personality modulates outcome evaluation in the trust game[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2017, 49(8): 1080-1088.
[10] LIN Lin.  Integratin the theory of planned behavior and implementation intention to overcome procrastination[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2017, 49(7): 953-965.
[11] PENG Ming, JING Wenying, CAI Mengfei, ZHOU Zongkui.  Perceptual difference between internet words and real-world words: temporal perception, distance perception, and perceptual scope[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2017, 49(7): 866-874.
[12] ZHANG Jianxin, LU Li, YIN Ming, ZHU Chuanlin, HUANG Chunlu, LIU Dianzhi.  The establishment of ecological microexpressions recognition test (EMERT): An improvement on JACBART microexpressions recognition test[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2017, 49(7): 886-896.
[13] LIN Wuji, MENG Yingfang, LIN Jingyuan.  Effects of interference on retrieval process in implicit memory[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2017, 49(7): 897-908.
[14] LIU Chao, LIU Jun, ZHU Li, WU Shouqiang.  The causes of abusive supervision from the perspective of rule-adaptation[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2017, 49(7): 966-979.
[15] XING Qiang, SUN Hailong, ZHAN Danling, HU Jing, LIU Kai.  The effect of executive function on verbal insight problem solving: Behavioral and ERPs studies[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2017, 49(7): 909-919.
Full text



Copyright © Acta Psychologica Sinica
Support by Beijing Magtech