ABSTRACT
One factor contributing to the research-practice gap is the common misconception that evidence-based practice is equivalent to evidence-based treatment. The latter refers to a specific form of intervention or technique that has empirical evidence-usually in the form of a randomized controlled trial-for its effectiveness in treating a particular ailment or illness within a specified patient population (Kazdin, 2008). However, evidencebased practice (EBP) consists of three interrelated actions aimed to identify the best possible approach to treatment: (1) consulting the research evidence for the most efficacious intervention(s); (2) identifying client values,
preferences, and needs in relation to treatment; and (3) critically reflecting on how previous intervention experiences can inform the present treatment approach (i.e., using clinical expertise) (Kazdin, 2008; Sackett, Rosenberg, Gray, Haynes, & Richardson, 1996). In this regard, EBP encapsulates EBT. The dilemma, however, is the extent to which clinicians presume that a departure from the EBT model constitutes the continued utilization of the EBT. Herein lies one of the most hotly debated issues in the human health and social services; that is, the extent to which EBP requires fidelity to the EBT and the extent to which we can attribute outcomes-good or bad-to an EBT model if the model is not implemented with fidelity.
