ABSTRACT
There are now many different types of CBT, some of which are linked to well-speci®ed and evidence-based models and others that are not. One of the limitations of CBT is that it is possible to specify any new schema that seems to ®t a particular new disorder or presentation. In contrast, MCT is based on a more tightly de®ned set of variables and beliefs and all disorder can be explained with reference to a small set of pre-speci®ed factors. This means that MCT theory is more parsimonious. It also implies that it may be possible to treat the CAS directly in all disorders, giving rise to a universal or trans-diagnostic treatment approach (Wells, 2009; Wells & Matthews, 1994). It is not clear at this stage whether it would be possible to dispense entirely with the disorder-speci®c models and these may be retained for optimal treatment effects. However, a universal treatment might be applied to all disorders as a starting point and then disorder-speci®c modules guided by individual models might then be used as needed. In contrast, the growth of different CBT models has led to an emphasis on the differences between disorders rather than on their similarities and it is unlikely that a universal CBT could emerge from this arena.
