Mia S. O'Toole, Mai B. Mikkelsen, Joanna J. Arch, Nina M. Tauber, Emma Elkjær, Johannes Michalak
{"title":"Compatibility of Components in Cognitive Behavioral Therapies: A Call for Combinatory Congruency","authors":"Mia S. O'Toole, Mai B. Mikkelsen, Joanna J. Arch, Nina M. Tauber, Emma Elkjær, Johannes Michalak","doi":"10.1016/j.cbpra.2023.12.006","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>A large minority of psychotherapists endorse practicing integrative therapy, drawing from different schools of therapy, and an increasing number of contemporary therapies are designed by combining elements or components from different treatment models (e.g., modular treatments, process-based therapy). As a result, clients are likely to be the recipients of a number of different techniques or strategies, based on different theoretical models, emphasizing different change principles. This paper sets out to explore the potential challenges introduced by integrative treatments, exemplified with the diverse therapies found under the umbrella of cognitive behavioral therapies (CBTs). Although several scholars have proposed a unifying agenda for CBTs by underscoring commonalities and shared change principles, which is an important perspective, the extent to which compatibility exists between CBTs remains an underexplored scientific question. In this paper, we argue that integrative therapy can risk detracting from a positive outcome when the compatibility between distinct strategies or components is not ensured. We call for practitioners and researchers to ensure <em>combinatory congruency</em>, that is, compatibility between components manifested as their efficient and effective delivery together. We conclude by suggesting ways in which combinatory congruency can be established in the design phase of an integrative treatment or as an important step in additive and dismantling studies of existing integrative treatment packages.</p>","PeriodicalId":51511,"journal":{"name":"Cognitive and Behavioral Practice","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cognitive and Behavioral Practice","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cbpra.2023.12.006","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
A large minority of psychotherapists endorse practicing integrative therapy, drawing from different schools of therapy, and an increasing number of contemporary therapies are designed by combining elements or components from different treatment models (e.g., modular treatments, process-based therapy). As a result, clients are likely to be the recipients of a number of different techniques or strategies, based on different theoretical models, emphasizing different change principles. This paper sets out to explore the potential challenges introduced by integrative treatments, exemplified with the diverse therapies found under the umbrella of cognitive behavioral therapies (CBTs). Although several scholars have proposed a unifying agenda for CBTs by underscoring commonalities and shared change principles, which is an important perspective, the extent to which compatibility exists between CBTs remains an underexplored scientific question. In this paper, we argue that integrative therapy can risk detracting from a positive outcome when the compatibility between distinct strategies or components is not ensured. We call for practitioners and researchers to ensure combinatory congruency, that is, compatibility between components manifested as their efficient and effective delivery together. We conclude by suggesting ways in which combinatory congruency can be established in the design phase of an integrative treatment or as an important step in additive and dismantling studies of existing integrative treatment packages.
期刊介绍:
Cognitive and Behavioral Practice is a quarterly international journal that serves an enduring resource for empirically informed methods of clinical practice. Its mission is to bridge the gap between published research and the actual clinical practice of cognitive behavior therapy. Cognitive and Behavioral Practice publishes clinically rich accounts of innovative assessment and diagnostic and therapeutic procedures that are clearly grounded in empirical research. A focus on application and implementation of procedures is maintained.