Adding a more rigorous scientific agenda to the empirically supported treatment movement.
Stop teaching the EST list as facts; teach students to pull apart how, where, and for whom each treatment works.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Najdowski et al. (2003) wrote a position paper. They said stop treating the EST list like a holy book.
Instead, they want training programs to teach six extra questions. How does the treatment work? Where does it work? Is the change big enough for real life? Can we spread it? What does it cost? Could it hurt?
What they found
The paper itself is the finding. No new data. Just a call to add science checks to every EST lesson.
How this fits with other research
Eugenia Gras et al. (2003) said the same thing the same year. Both papers trash the EST list and want deeper scrutiny.
Malott (2018) later built a whole training model around the idea. Read JABA first, JEAB second, packages last.
Blydenburg et al. (2016) asked program directors what they actually teach. Directors admitted they skip mechanisms and basic research—exactly the gaps C et al. warned about.
Why it matters
If you supervise students, swap one EST lecture for a mechanism lab. Pick one EST on your syllabus. Ask the class to find the principle, the context, the cost, and any possible harm. You just turned a memorization class into a scientist-practitioner drill.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Pick one EST you use. Write the working principle, the settings it was tested in, and one way it could backfire—then share that sheet with your supervisee.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
As the empirically supported treatment (EST) effort has expanded, there are efforts to make the study of ESTs a more integral part of training programs. In its present form, the EST list provides a poor model of how to evaluate treatment and scientific issues related to our field. This article offer several suggestions regarding how to establish a more relevant scientific agenda for the committee's work if the study of ESTs is to usefully influence training programs. Recommendations are made to encourage programs and the CSP to study mechanisms of change, important contextual variables for therapy delivery, the distinction between statistical significance and clinical meaningfulness, dissemination, cost-effectiveness, and iatrogenic effects. It is argued that any program that created a curriculum educating students to thoughtfully address these issues when evaluating therapies would be producing sound clinical scientists regardless of the quality of the EST list itself.
Behavior modification, 2003 · doi:10.1177/0145445503027003006