Creating Our Own Suspension Bridge Between Practice and Evidence

Abstract

The word evidence refers to something that is obvious and clear, tending to establish facts and supporting a claim (Oxford English Dictionary, n.d.). The origins from classical Latin stem from the notion of being manifest of the senses and being evident to the mind. When something is evidence-based, it is “derived from evidence” or something that is “empirical” (observations and experiments). So, the additional term, based relates to the “practical application of the ... best available current research in the field to a particular set of facts” (Oxford English Dictionary, n.d.). In the medical sciences a hierarchical criterion was established to ensure that certain types of evidence are valued over another. In particular, Randomized Control Trials and MetaAnalyses are highlighted as the gold standards for evidence as they involve controlling for the greatest number of variables. Whereas the least controllable studies such as Observational Reports and Case Studies are often regarded as the more inferior form of evidence. Therefore, the best available current research in the field relates to testing a therapeutic in such a way that can produce a standardization of treatment and routine application to ensure that the delivery of treatment is applied in the same way with the same anticipated results. However, a very important distinction of how this translates to art therapy research is testing in laboratory settings versus real world settings. Therefore, art therapy research is not just focused on does this work, it also needs to be relevant, adaptable, sustainable, and credible at a contextual level for it to carry weight as a justifiable piece of evidence. In opposition to defining an art therapy evidencebase in a restrictive way, Van Lith and Beerse (2019) called for a categorical typology of art therapy evidence that values heterogeneity and bridges several various forms of smaller studies together to address pivotal questions. This means rather than solely placing the end goal of success on effectiveness, they suggest examining effectiveness alongside salience, cost-effectiveness, safeness, functionality, program satisfaction, appropriateness, and acceptance through using an array of mixed method strategies. This might include biological indicators, social outcomes, psychological impacts, lived experiences, and observational information, integrated within the one study to substantiate and support a more nuanced picture of the associated benefits along with identifying any unforeseen adverse impacts that need to be considered in future application.