Persuasion criteria in research and practice: Gathering more meaningful psychotherapy data.
Stop hoping p-values will change staff—use tight case formulation and clear graphs instead.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Cordova et al. (1993) wrote a think-piece, not an experiment.
They looked at piles of psychotherapy studies and asked one question: would a working therapist care?
The answer was no. The authors said we need a new game plan—case formulation that tracks each client’s unique triggers and pay-offs.
What they found
The paper found that group averages and p-values do not move clinicians.
Instead, stories built from single-client data—clear graphs, fast changes—make staff believe and act.
How this fits with other research
Rojahn et al. (1994) took the advice and ran a single case. They added shaping moments to standard CBT and showed the client improved—proof that live formulation works.
Lambert et al. (2022) went bigger. Their university clinic used a function-informed plan across six years. Some kids’ problem behavior dropped sharply, others did not. The mixed bag shows formulation is powerful but needs tweaks.
Manolov et al. (2014) gave us the numbers. They added trend lines and variability bands to single-case graphs so the visual story is even clearer—answering the 1993 call for persuasive data.
Why it matters
You do not need a lab coat. Start writing a one-page sketch of the client’s triggers, behaviors, and reinforcers. Graph one target behavior each session. Show the chart to the team and to the parent. When they see the line move, buy-in grows and you can adjust fast. That is the legacy of Cordova et al. (1993): make data talk like a story, not like a textbook.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Pick one client, draw a daily graph of the top problem behavior, and review it with the team at lunch.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
Psychotherapy research should ultimately benefit the psychotherapy client. Unfortunately, traditional psychotherapy research continues to have little influence on practicing clinicians and, therefore, does not benefit psychotherapy clients. As behavior analysts begin to show interest in this area of research, they may be in a position to improve its quality. We argue that traditional psychotherapy researchers have become prematurely wedded to a methodology that does not address the concerns of clinical audiences. Furthermore, we make a case for defining and evaluating psychotherapy data in terms of its capacity to influence both researchers and clinicians. We also suggest several alternative methods for gathering psychotherapy data based on the case formulation approach. We argue that this approach may be one of the most promising methods for gathering useful psychotherapy data.
The Behavior analyst, 1993 · doi:10.1007/BF03392639