Individual therapy for couple problems: perspectives and pitfalls.

Despite the demonstrated efficacy of conjoint couple therapy, many clients seeking help for couple problems ultimately find themselves in individual therapy for these concerns. Individual therapy for couple problems (ITCP) may evolve from a partner's refusal of conjoint therapy or from the treatment format preferences of either the client or therapist. Having acknowledged the role of partner refusals, we offer some perspectives about the idiosyncratic personal factors and professional background factors that may lead therapists to provide ITCP and discuss the significant pitfalls in its practice.

Expanding the lens of evidence-based practice in psychotherapy: a common factors perspective.

In this article, we examine the science and policy implications of the common factors perspective (CF; Frank & Frank, 1993; Wampold, 2007). As the empirically supported treatment (EST) approach, grounded in randomized controlled trials (RCTs), is the received view (see Baker, McFall, & Shoham, 2008; McHugh & Barlow, 2012), we make the case for the CF perspective as an additional evidence-based approach for understanding how therapy works, but also as a basis for improving the quality of mental health services. Finally, we argue that it is time to integrate the 2 perspectives, and we challenge the field to do so.

Behavioral couple therapy: building a secure base for therapeutic integration.

Behavioral couple therapy (BCT), one of the two most empirically supported approaches to the treatment of couple discord, has undergone enormous changes in its four decades-long clinical and conceptual history. The evolution of thought about what maintains couple disaffection and distress and what can be done about it from a behavioral perspective is reviewed. These changes are considered in the larger context of the field of behavior therapy, noting shifts within BCT that parallel the three "waves" of development within that field.

Guidelines for classifying evidence-based treatments in couple and family therapy.

Guidelines for Evidence-Based Treatments in Family Therapy are intended to help guide clinicians, researchers, and policy makers in identifying specific clinical interventions and treatment programs for couples and families that have scientifically based evidence to support their efficacy. In contrast to criteria, which simply identify treatments that "work" and have been employed in the evaluation of other psychotherapies, these guidelines propose a three-tiered levels-of-evidence-based model that moves from "evidence-informed," to "evidence-based," to "evidence-based and ready for dissemination and transportation within diverse community settings." Each level reflects an interaction between the specificity of the intervention, the strength and readth of the outcomes, and the quality of the studies that form the evidence.

Couple therapy research and the practice of couple therapy: can we talk?

As has been true in every other realm of psychotherapy, couple therapy research generally has had very little impact on the day-to-day practice of couple therapists. To a significant degree, this unfortunate disconnection may be attributable to an overemphasis by researchers in the field on treatment packages and therapeutic methods/techniques. Insufficient attention has been paid to other important sources of influence on treatment outcomes, especially the couple therapist herself/himself.

The history of couple therapy: a millennial review.

In this article, we review the major conceptual and clinical influences and trends in the history of couple therapy to date, and also chronicle the history of research on couple therapy. The evolving patterns in theory and practice are reviewed as having progressed through four distinctive phases: Phase I--Atheoretical Marriage Counseling Formation (1930-1963); Phase II--Psychoanalytic Experimentation (1931-1966); Phase III--Family Therapy Incorporation (1963-1985); and Phase IV--Refinement, Extension, Diversification, and Integration (1986-present). The history of research in the field is described as having passed through three phases: Phase I--A Technique in Search of Some Data (1930-1974), Phase II--Irrational(?) Exuberance (1975-1992), and Phase III--Caution and Extension (1993-present).