The document discusses reactions to the "Dodo bird verdict" which suggests that all major psychotherapies are equally effective. Researchers have tried to disprove this through efficacy research to identify superior therapies, while practitioners have embraced integration by combining different approaches. The document also examines criticisms of efficacy research methodology and the rise of psychotherapy integration among practitioners.

1. REACTIONS TO THE Dodo BIRD VERDICT
Evidence-based treatments and integrative psychotherapy
Kevin Rushton, November 2012; Edited July 2018
ABSTRACT
Much of the current research indicates that all major psychotherapies are roughly equivalent in
efficacy. This idea, nicknamed “the Dodo bird verdict” after an analogy drawn from Lewis Carroll’s
Alice in Wonderland, has elicited very different responses from researchers and practitioners.
Researchers have put more and more effort into efficacy research, hoping to find a limited number of
therapies that are superior to others. Accepting the verdict more readily, practitioners have
integrated components of many psychotherapies (which they accept as roughly equal in efficacy) into
their increasingly eclectic practice. This leaves researchers without an attentive audience among
practitioners, and it leaves psychotherapists without much research on best practices for integration
itself. This literature review explores the strengths and limitations of efficacy research and
psychotherapy integration and proposes directions for future research that would help achieve greater
unity across the field.
THE DODO BIRD VERDICT
In Alice in Wonderland, Alice finds herself swimming in a lake of her own tears. When she and her
animal companions reach the shore, they are still drenched. The wise Dodo bird proposes a solution
to dry off the tears: they should have a Caucus-Race. A Caucus-Race, he explains, requires no track,
no starting or finish line, and no countdown. The contestants simply run in whatever direction they
like, starting and ending whenever they please. Alice and the animals comply, and when they have
all dried, the Dodo declares, “Everybody has won, and everybody must have prizes!”
Carroll meant to satire the British caucus system with this seemingly futile race, but Saul Rosenzweig
(1936) applied the parable in a more positive light to the multiplicity of psychotherapies. While
proponents of various psychotherapies debate the merits of each, Rosenzweig’s so-called Dodo bird
verdict asserts that virtually all psychotherapies have “won” and all deserve prizes. Several meta-
analyses of efficacy research have lent empirical credence to this idea (Luborsky, Singer, & Luborsky,
1975; Luborskey et al., 2002; Messer & Wampold, 2002; Wampold et al., 1997).
Researchers have responded by focusing even more heavily on efficacy research, attempting to
identify superior psychotherapies and disprove the Dodo bird verdict. Metaphorically speaking,

2. efficacy researchers attempt to replace the Dodo’s Caucus-Race with a more traditional race, one
with winners and losers.
Practitioners of psychotherapy, for the most part, have been more accepting of the Dodo bird
verdict. This is evident in the rising popularity of psychotherapy integration, or eclecticism.
Believing that all psychotherapies are more or less equally viable, therapists feel free to borrow from a
variety of treatment modalities as they see fit.
Although recent trends among researchers and psychotherapists have been generally divergent,
psychotherapy research and practice can be successfully synthesized into a pluralistic model of
integrative psychotherapy.
EFFICACY RESEARCH
Efficacy research is an effort to determine experimentally which types of psychotherapy are most
effective in treating mental illness. It is primarily conducted in randomized controlled trials (RCTs),
in which participants are randomly assigned either to a control group, in which participants receive
“usual care”, or to an experimental group, in which participants receive the treatment being tested
for efficacy. The experimental treatment is manualized—standardized using a treatment manual—
to ensure that all participants in the experimental group are receiving the same treatment.
Psychotherapies that have been shown in RCTs to be significantly more effective than usual care are
called empirically validated therapies (EVTs). Most of these therapies fall under the umbrella of
cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT), making EVTs and CBT almost synonymous in practice.
RCTs can also be used to test individual components of a treatment modality. In these component
studies, the control group also receives the manualized treatment, minus the component being
tested. For example, one study determined experimentally that an EVT called General
Psychotherapy (GPT) was just as effective for most clients without one of its components,
motivation clarification (Holtforth et al., 2012).
The same experimental technique can also be applied to client differences. In the above study,
motivation clarification was still important for the most symptomatic clients; therapists who use
GPT can now use this information to decide whether to employ motivation clarification with
particular clients.
OBJECTIONS TO EFFICACY RESEARCH
Despite the prevalence of efficacy research, EVTs have not had the impact on psychotherapy that
researchers have hoped for. Most psychotherapists report using some CBT techniques, but almost
none use them exclusively (Cook, Biyanova, Elhai, Schnurr, & Coyne, 2010; Stewart, Stirman, &
Chabless, 2012).

3. There are several reasons why psychotherapists are skeptical of EVTs. One of these is the Dodo bird
verdict, but another is the nature of efficacy research itself. Skeptics of efficacy research identify
several problems with its external and construct validity. Three of the most prominent criticisms are
addressed here.
EXTERNAL VALIDITY: RESEARCH PARTICIPANTS
Participants in RCTs are narrowed down to a very specific set of clients. Most significantly, clients
with comorbid conditions (two or more conditions occurring simultaneously) are almost always
excluded because multiple conditions complicate statistical analyses of results. In real life, the
majority of individuals who seek psychotherapy have comorbid conditions—most commonly
depression and anxiety (Almeida, et al., 2012; Bauer, Wilansky-Traynor, & Rector, 2012; Chu,
Merson, Zandberg, & Areizaga, 2012). Excluding these individuals from studies weakens the
generalizability of the findings.
Qualitative methods, such as case studies, may be more externally valid because they involve
observation of therapy as it actually occurs outside the tightly-controlled experimental setting. Of
course, it is also more difficult to draw definite conclusions from qualitative analyses—which
explains their exclusion from efficacy research. The most effective research program would involve a
combination of qualitative and quantitative methods (Norcross & Goldfried, 2005). Researchers
should acknowledge the strengths and weaknesses of both, striking a balance between the
authenticity of qualitative research methods and the precision of RCTs.
CONSTRUCT VALIDITY: RESEARCH DESIGN
Current efficacy research is exclusively empirical. Cognitive-behavioral theories of psychotherapy are
rooted in the philosophy of empiricism (absolute reliance on direct observation), which makes them
especially compatible with efficacy research; arguably, CBT is the most empirically validated therapy
because it is the easiest to research empirically. Duncan (2002) cynically calls EVTs “politically
validated treatments” (p. 44).
Many other psychotherapies are primarily concerned with more abstract concepts, such as Freud’s
psychodynamics or Rogers’ congruence. As critics of EVTs argue, the fact that these abstract
concepts cannot be directly observed does not mean they do not exist, or that they are not important
in psychotherapy. It does, however, mean that they are more difficult to study empirically.
But empirical evaluation of these more abstract concepts is far from impossible. Carl Rogers, whose
nondirective therapy is in many ways the antithesis of CBT, compiled a list of observable behaviors
exhibited by a successful nondirective therapist (Rychlak, 1981). This list operationalizes the
abstract concepts of nondirective therapy for use in empirical research. Surely, abstract concepts
from other psychotherapies, such as psychoanalysis or existential psychotherapy, could be similarly

4. operationalized. This would allow efficacy research to be performed equally on all psychotherapies,
putting them on an equal plane with CBT.
CONSTRUCT VALIDITY: CLIENT GOALS
Psychotherapy is a dynamic social interaction between two individuals, not a pill administered to
passive recipients; many theorists argue that clients contribute just as much to the therapy process as
therapists do (Budd & Hughes, 2009). In most psychotherapies, improvement requires insight
and/or action on the part of the client. Clients also contribute their own therapy goals and theories
of change. The use of manualized therapy in RCTs stifles the spontaneity of the therapeutic
relationship, and the use of researcher-oriented constructs to evaluate therapy ignores the client’s
therapy goals (Norcross & Goldfried, 2005).
Manualization is necessary for RCTs because all therapists in the experimental condition must be
administering the same therapy. The client, however, cannot be manualized; with or without
manualization, no two therapy sessions are the same. Therapists and clients alike prefer a more
flexible approach to psychotherapy (Norcross & Goldfried, 2005; Von Below &Werbart, 2012). If
manualization in the real world of psychology is not necessarily preferable, neither is its use in
efficacy research. More complex statistical methods could be used to account for reciprocal causality,
feedback loops, and chaotic processes; in other words, they could account for the complexity of
therapy as a spontaneous interaction between two relatively unpredictable human beings (Norcross
& Goldfried, 2005).
An even simpler way to account for clients’ contributions to psychotherapy is to evaluate efficacy
based on the goals of clients. Currently, psychotherapy is evaluated by outcomes determined by
researchers and psychotherapists. However, clients have their own ideas about what they hope to
achieve through therapy. Clients often seek therapy because of relational difficulties or existential
crises, rather than obvious behavioral problems (Duncan, 2002). Clients also have their own
theories of change, which often differ dramatically from those of researchers and psychotherapists.
Some commonly reported factors clients believe are helpful include a good relationship with the
therapist, as well as the fostering of hope, correction of maladaptive beliefs, and generation of new
meaning (Binder, Holgersen, & Nielsen, 2009).
Efficacy research has focused too little on these client factors. Some of them, such as a strong
therapeutic alliance and the correction of maladaptive beliefs, are important components of CBT,
which makes it all the more strange that they have been ignored in the research. Even less attention
has been paid to which aspects of therapy foster hope or help generate new meaning. The fact that
these concepts are abstract and thus difficult to evaluate empirically does not make them less
important. Besides, that has not stopped psychologists from researching other abstract concepts such
as obedience or attraction.

5. EFFICACY RESEARCH AND COMMON FACTORS
In many ways, the Dodo bird verdict is the arch-nemesis of efficacy research. The idea that all
psychotherapies are equal in efficacy is arguably antithetical to the purpose of empirical validation
and stands in the way of more widespread acceptance of EVTs. The Association for Behavioral and
Cognitive Therapies has even referred to rebutting the Dodo bird verdict as “fighting the good fight”
(Young & Connolly, 2008, p. 97). In the eyes of EVT proponents, the Dodo bird verdict keeps the
majority of psychotherapists in the dark, blinding them to the obvious superiority of EVTs.
Ironically, evidence in favor of the Dodo bird verdict comes from meta-analyses of efficacy research.
In a sense, efficacy researchers have created their own arch-nemesis. While countless individual
studies have claimed to successfully demonstrate the efficacy of manualized EVTs, they are so
outweighed by unsuccessful studies that their success rate may be attributable to chance alone
(Duncan 2002). In fact, Messer and Wampold (2002) claim that the article that popularized the
Dodo bird verdict (Luborksy et al., 1975) actually overestimated the differences between
psychotherapies.
Some of the most important scientific discoveries have come from experiments intended to study
something else entirely. So it is with efficacy research. Attempts to find the differences among
psychotherapies have been much more effective in identifying common factors among
psychotherapies.
First and foremost, efficacy research has clearly demonstrated that psychotherapy in general—
empirically validated or not—is significantly more effective than no psychotherapy at all (Wampold
et al., 1997). This is no small thing, but it has been largely taken for granted by efficacy researchers.
The Dodo bird verdict states that all psychotherapies are equally effective, not equally ineffective.
Identifying slight variations in effectiveness, then, may not be as useful as identifying what makes
psychotherapy effective as a whole.
Fortunately, efficacy research has identified some common factors that help make all psychotherapies
effective. Having reviewed previous meta-analyses of efficacy research, Messer and Wampold (2002)
identified three such common factors, which account for much more variance in treatment quality
than do technical differences among psychotherapies. These are the therapeutic alliance, allegiance
to a particular therapy, and quality of therapist.
The therapeutic alliance is the relationship between client and therapist. It depends on three major
components: agreement on goals, assignment of tasks, and therapist-client bonds (Bordin, 1979).
The concept of a therapeutic alliance is present in some form in every major theory of
psychotherapy.
Allegiance to a particular therapy refers to how strongly a therapist or researcher believes it will work.
The more the therapist believes in the efficacy of the psychotherapy, the more likely the client will

6. show improvement. Likewise, the more researchers believe in the efficacy of the psychotherapy, the
more likely their research (including RCTs) will support that psychotherapy.
Finally, some therapists are better than others. This is true in all branches of psychotherapy. A good
therapist administering a supposedly less validated therapy is likely to be more effective than a bad
therapist administering a manualized EVT.
Messer and Wampold (2002) estimate that these three factors account for 7%, 70%, and 6-9% of
the variance in psychotherapy efficacy, respectively. In contrast, theoretical differences among
psychotherapies account for about 1% of the variance, and individual psychotherapy techniques
account for about almost none. This means that insomuch as there are differences in efficacy among
psychotherapies, they pale in comparison to the differences in efficacy between good and bad
instances of any given therapy.
The implication of these findings is that it is more important to research what makes a strong
therapeutic alliance or a good therapist than it is to research the relative efficacy of precise
techniques. Such research would make efficacy research a cooperative effort among all divisions of
psychotherapy, rather than a battle royale meant to extinguish all but a few.
PSYCHOTHERAPY INTEGRATION
Most psychotherapists have not wholeheartedly adopted EVTs, for reasons described above as well as
others. Integration and eclecticism have comprised a much more prevalent trend among
practitioners in the past several decades. Integration and eclecticism are closely related; they both
involve borrowing elements from a variety of psychotherapies. Generally speaking, integration
involves borrowing theories, whereas eclecticism involves borrowing techniques, often ignoring the
theories behind them. However, the distinction is vague and not universally acknowledged, and the
two are more similar than different (Hollanders, 1999). In this literature review they will be used
interchangeably, with more emphasis placed on integration.
Integrative psychotherapy is a logical reaction to the Dodo bird verdict. If all psychotherapies are
equally effective, methodological purism is pointless. When one psychotherapy seems not to be
working, elements of another can substitute (Schottenbauer, Glass, & Arnkoff, 2007).
Undoubtedly, few psychotherapists are actually familiar with the term “Dodo bird verdict,” but most
do seem to implicitly believe it: Cook et al. (2010) estimate that only about 2% of psychotherapists
are purists. The rest practice varying degrees of integration.
Despite the ubiquity of integration, there nearly as many opinions on how best to integrate as there
are psychotherapists. Integration is rarely trained; psychotherapists are usually trained primarily in
one orientation and later develop their own system of integration (Consoli & Jester, 2005).
However, a few patterns are emerging as integrative psychotherapists collaborate to articulate and

7. organize their opinions. Most integration strategies fall into a few broad categories; three of these are
addressed here.
INTEGRATED EVTS
Integrative psychotherapy and EVTs are not mutually exclusive. Many manualized EVTs are
eclectic mixtures of other EVTs, sometimes also incorporating elements from non-EVTs. This
approach retains the benefits of any other EVT; empirical validation reassures skeptical clients and
therapists, while manualization makes treatment relatively easy to teach and regulate. Studies have
shown some of these integrated EVTs to be superior to regular CBT (Chongruksa, Parinyapol,
Sawatsri, & Pansomboon, 2012; Holtforth et al., 2012; Schnyder, Müller, Maercker, & Wittmann,
2011).
The main weakness of integrated EVTs is that they lack the spontaneity of other integration
strategies. Once an EVT becomes manualized, a deviation from the manual is a deviation from
empirical validation. Spontaneous integration would be a rejection of efficacy research. The
“integrated” EVT becomes another unitary, purist psychotherapy. From this perspective,
manualized integration is not true integration at all (Cooper & McLeod, 2007).
ASSIMILATIVE INTEGRATION (ECLECTICISM)
The most common type of integration is probably assimilative integration (Hickman, Arnkoff,
Glass, & Schottenbauer, 2009). In assimilative integration, the therapist works primarily from one
theoretical orientation, incorporating techniques from other orientations as necessary.
The prevalence of this type of integration is due largely to the fact that therapists are generally
trained in one specific psychotherapy. Other psychotherapies are reviewed briefly but usually
separately and not in-depth (Consoli & Jester, 2005). When a client or population seems
unresponsive to a unitary approach, therapists seek out techniques from other psychotherapies that
may help (Schottenbauer et al., 2007). This approach does not require an in-depth understanding
of the theory behind those techniques, making it relatively easy to do.
Some psychotherapists praise this approach for its flexibility and practicality; others criticize the
haphazard use of therapeutic techniques without consideration of the theory of change on which
they are based (Norcross & Goldfried, 2005).
PLURALISM
Pluralism is an attempt to integrate not only the techniques of different psychotherapies, but the
theories as well. Extremes in psychotherapy often seem impossible to reconcile (e.g. Freudian
psychodynamics and Skinnerian behaviorism), but with a more open-minded view these different
perspectives can complement, rather than contradict, each other (Norcross & Goldfried, 2005).

8. Several pluralistic models have been developed to unite disparate theoretical orientations. One
common model places orientations on a diagram with two axes: on one axis, psychodynamics and
CBT oppose each other; on the other, humanistic or individualistic psychotherapy and systems
approaches oppose each other. According to this model, all four of these orientations address
important aspects of human experience, and therefore all are important to psychotherapy (Consoli &
Jester, 2005).
UNIFYING RESEARCHERS AND THERAPISTS
The two most salient deficiencies of efficacy research and integration as they now stand are an
ignorance of underlying theory and a neglect of client’s perspectives. Efficacy researchers study
techniques alone, as if techniques operate independently from their theoretical justification;
therapists integrate techniques with the same indiscriminate attitude. Meanwhile, the experience,
opinions and goals of clients are often ignored by researchers and therapists alike. Without theory or
systematic client feedback to guide it, psychotherapy is in danger of becoming a haphazard blend of
hollow techniques.
A pluralistic approach to psychotherapy integration can remedy this predicament from both sides.
Researchers should study a variety of psychotherapies (not just CBT), using methods appropriate to
the particular therapy being studied. As theory is taken into account in efficacy research, more
psychotherapies will be empirically validated, and integrative psychotherapists will have access to
research exploring when and how to integrate them. Furthermore, more emphasis should be placed
on researching common factors, which will benefit all psychotherapies rather than pitting them
against each other.
Researchers should also lend more credence to the perspective of clients. This will make efficacy
research more complex, to match the complexity of therapy as a spontaneous interaction between
two individuals. Furthermore, it will help improve knowledge about the therapeutic alliance, one of
the most important components of any psychotherapy.
DISCUSSION
Despite the best efforts of efficacy researchers, EVTs have not displaced other psychotherapies.
Rather than narrowing their scope to a few empirically validated treatments, practitioners integrate
an increasingly wide variety of treatments into their everyday practice. Nearly all psychotherapists
practice some form of integration, even though almost none of them have received any formal
training in integration. A few training programs are beginning to offer courses in psychotherapy
integration (Consoli & Jester, 2005); however, these programs suffer from a dearth of systematic
research to support one type of integration or another.
Efficacy researchers and integrative psychotherapists have complementary needs. Efficacy researchers
need a more effective outlet for their research, and integrative psychotherapists need more research

9. on their own discipline. A wider variety of research designs, statistical models, and outcomes should
be implemented in efficacy research in order to determine when and how psychotherapists should
integrate.
STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS OF THIS LITERATURE REVIEW
The viewpoints expressed in this literature review are drawn from a wide variety of prominent
thinkers in the areas of efficacy research and psychotherapy integration. Opposing views have been
given the fairest treatment possible within the constraints of length and relevance. Furthermore,
these opposing views are synthesized rather than attacked.
The main limitations of this literature review are due to the scarcity of systematic research on the
topic of psychotherapy integration. Many articles have been written expressing opinions on the
subject, and some qualitative research has been done, but there is little experimental research to
support one view of integration or another. As such, the scope of this review has been limited to
encouraging the proliferation of systematic research, rather than exploring the results that research
will hopefully provide.
IMPLICATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH
Several implications for future research have been addressed, but two are worth special emphasis.
First, efficacy researchers should pay more attention to client factors in measuring therapy outcomes.
True, clients fill out the questionnaires used to evaluate outcomes, but they have no say in what
those outcomes are in the first place. More research should be done on what clients desire and
expect from therapy.
Second, efficacy researchers should focus more on common factors underlying all psychotherapies
and less on pitting psychotherapies against each other. This will make efficacy research relevant to
more psychotherapists, because many of them are uninterested in converting to EVTs but do express
interest in learning how to improve their own methods.
The most important principle of this literature review is that psychologists on both the research and
practical sides of psychotherapy must cooperate if the field is to rise above contests between existing
therapies and create a system that is greater than the sum of each individual therapy.
REFERENCES
Almeida, O. P., Draper, B., Pirkis, J., Snowdon, J., Lautenschlager, N. T., Byrne, G., Sim, M., Stocks, N., Kerse, N.,
Flicker, L. & Pfaff, J. J. (2012). Anxiety, depression, and comorbid anxiety and depression: Risk factors and
outcome over two years. International Psychogeriatrics, 24, 1622-1632.
Bauer, I., Wilansky-Traynor, P., Rector, N. A. (2012). Cognitive-behavioral therapy for anxiety disorders with comorbid
depression: A review. International Journal of Cognitive Therapy, 5, 118-156.

10. Binder, P., Holgersen, H., & Nielsen, G. H. (2009). Why did I change when I went to therapy? A qualitative analysis of
former patients’ conceptions of successful psychotherapy. Counselling and Psychotherapy Research, 9, 250-256.
Bordin, E. S. ( 1979). The generalizability of the psychoanalytic concept of the working alliance. Psychotherapy: Theory,
Research, and Practice, 16, 252– 260.
Budd, R., & Hughes, I. (2009). The Dodo bird verdict—Controversial, inevitable and important: A commentary on 30
years of meta-analyses. Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy, 16, 510-522.
Chongruksa, D., Parinyapol, P., Sawatsri, S., & Pansomboon, C. (2012). Efficacy of eclectic group counseling in
addressing stress among Thai police officers in terrorist situations. Counselling Psychology Quarterly, 5, 83-96
Chu, B. C., Merson, R. A., Zandberg, L. J., & Areizaga, M. (2012). Calibrating for comorbidity: Clinical decision-
making in youth depression and anxiety. Cognitive and Behavioral Practice, 19, 5-16.
Consoli, A. J., & Jester, C. M. (2005). A model for teaching psychotherapy theory through an integrative structure.
Journal of Psychotherapy Integration, 15, 358-373.
Cook, J. M., Biyanova, T., Elhai, J., Schnurr, P. P., & Coyne, J. C. (2010). What do psychotherapists really do in
practice? An internet study of over 2,000 practicioners. Psychotherapy Theory, Research, Practice, Training, 47,
260-267.
Cooper, M., & McLeod, J. (2007). A pluralistic framework for counselling and psychotherapy: Implications for research.
Counselling and Psychotherapy Research: Linking research with practice 7, 135-143.
Duncan, B. L. (2002). The legacy of Saul Rosenzweig: The profundity of the dodo bird. Journal of Psychotherapy
Integration, 12, 32-57
Hickman, E. E., Arnkoff, D. B., Glass, C. R., & Schottenbauer, M. A. (2009). Psychotherapy integration as practiced by
experts. Psychotherapy Theory, Research, Practice, 46, 486–491.
Hollanders, H. (1999). Eclecticism and integration in counselling: Implications for training. British Journal of Guidance
& Counselling, 27, 483-500.
Holtforth, M. G., Wilm, K., Beyermann, S., Rhode, A., Trost, S., & Steyer, R. (2012). Differential change in integrative
psychotherapy: A re-analysis of a change-factor based RCT in a naturalistic setting. Psychotherapy Research, 21,
631-643.
Luborsky, L., Rosenthal, R., Diguer, L., Andrusyna, T. P., Berman, J. S., Levitt, J. T., Seligman, D. A. & Krause, E. D.
(2002). The dodo bird verdict is alive and well—mostly. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 9, 2-12
Luborsky, L., Singer, B., & Luborsky, L. (1975). Comparative studies of psychotherapies: Is it true that 'everyone has
won and all must have prizes'? Archives of General Psychiatry, 32, 995-1008.
Messer, S. B., & Wampold, B. E. (2002). Let's face facts: Common factors are more potent than specific therapy
ingredients. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 9, 21-25.
Norcross, J. C., & Goldfried, M. R. (2005). The future of psychotherapy integration: A roundtable. Journal of
Psychotherapy Integration, 15, 392-471.
Rosenzweig, S. (1936). Some implicit common factors in diverse methods of psychotherapy. American Journal of
Orthopsychiatry, 6, 412–415.

11. Rychlak, J. F. (1981). Introduction to personality and psychotherapy: A theory-construction approach. Boston:
Houghton Mifflin Company.
Schnyder, U., Müller, J., Maercker, A., & Wittmann, L. (2011). Brief eclectic psychotherapy for PTSD: A randomized
controlled trial. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 72, 564-566.
Schottenbauer, M. A., Glass, C. R., & Arnkoff, D. B. (2007). Decision making and psychotherapy integration:
Theoretical considerations, preliminary data, and implications for future research. Journal of Psychotherapy
Integration, 17, 225-250.
Stewart, R. E., Stirman, S. W., & Chambless, D. L. (2012). A qualitative investigation of practicing psychologists'
attitudes toward research-informed practice: Implications for dissemination strategies. Professional Psychology:
Research and Practice, 43, 100-109.
Von Below, C., & Werbart, A. (2012). Dissatisfied psychotherapy patients: A tentative conceptual model grounded in
the participants' view. Psychoanalytic Psychotherapy, 26, 211-229.
Wampold, B. E., Mondin, G. W., Moody, M., Stich, F., Benson, K., & Ahn, H. (1997). A meta-analysis of outcome
studies comparing bona fide psychotherapies: Empirically, “all must have prizes.” Psychological Bulletin, 122, 203–
215.
Young, J., & Connolly, K. (2008). Fighting the good fight by hunting the Dodo bird to extinction: ABCT's
dissemination effort. The Behavior Therapist, 31, 97-100.