When the evidence says, "Yes, no, and maybe so": Attending to and interpreting inconsistent findings among evidence-based interventions.

Abstract

An international, multidisciplinary effort aims to identify evidence-based treatments (EBTs) or interventions. The goal of this effort is to identify specific techniques or programs that successfully target and change specific behaviors. In clinical psychology, EBTs are identified based on the outcomes of randomized controlled trials examining whether treatments outperform control or alternative treatment conditions. Treatment outcomes are measured in multiple ways. Consistently, different ways of gauging outcomes yield inconsistent conclusions. Historically, EBT research has not accounted for these inconsistencies. In this paper we highlight the implications of inconsistencies, describe a framework for redressing inconsistent findings, and illustrate how the framework can guide future research on how to administer and combine treatments to maximize treatment effects and how to study treatments via quantitative review.