Abstract
Separating the wheat from the chaff in psychological treatments. The empirical assessment of treatments, psycholog ical or otherwise, has become a necessity. The principal reasons are deontolog ical, professional, scientific, economic and, ultimately, political. Critics of this type of evaluation maintain the argument, among others, that psychotherapy is an activity which cannot be subjected to an assessment process that is alien to its nature, and which fails to take into account the complexity of the person and the therapeutic relationship. For such authors, the non-specific variables are more important than the technical ones, and this has led to a claim for an equivalence of efficaciousness between the different psychotherapies (in what has been referred to as "the Dodo verdict", according to which everyone wins and they all get a prize). Nevertheless, despite the drawbacks, the empirical assessment of treatments is necessary and possible, and is in fact gaining ground, with treatment guides as its principal exponent. This paper analyses the main characteristics of studies of efficaciousness and effectiveness, and defends the complementary nature of the two approaches to empirical assessment. Finally, the advantages and disadvantag es of treatment guides are discussed.
