ABSTRACT
The role of and perceived benefits and problems with clinical trial research has emerged as one of the major controversies in psychotherapy. This chapter looks at the debate about clinical trials to assess psychotherapies in the context of recent developments within the mental health field to delineate what is meant by evidence-based practice and how it should inform practice. Most therapists and the public might wonder about how a difference of opinion about what might seem to be an arcane topic, the comparative value of different methodologies for studying psychotherapy, could have importance beyond the province of academic discourse. In a world increasingly conscious of the importance of accountability, showing that therapy "works" and which therapies "work" has become vitally important to third-party payers and the public. And deciding what is meant by works is in part determined by how the question is framed, a product of the kind of evidence regarded as relevant to answering the question.
