The development and evolution of family therapy research: its impact on practice, current status, and future directions.

Science has always been a central part of family therapy. Research by early pioneers focused on studying the efficacy of both couple and family interventions from a systemic perspective. Today we know more now than ever before about the processes of diverse families and the therapeutic outcomes of family therapy practices. Despite the acknowledged importance of family therapy research, there are still questions about its impact on "real life" practice. Despite all the flaws of each, research and practice are critical interacting elements of a dialectic relationship: High-quality practice combines reliable scientific knowledge with individual clinical judgment made by family therapists in the context of their dynamic transactions with a family or couple. Future research can help uncover the mechanisms we have yet to know and test the ones we have identified while the dynamic interaction of research and practice that can lead to further innovations and developments central to the future of family therapy.

Development of clinical practice guidelines.

Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) are intended to improve mental, behavioral, and physical health by promoting clinical practices that are based on the best available evidence. The American Psychological Association (APA) is committed to generating patient-focused CPGs that are scientifically sound, clinically useful, and informative for psychologists, other health professionals, training programs, policy makers, and the public. The Institute of Medicine (IOM) 2011 standards for generating CPGs represent current best practices in the field. These standards involve multidisciplinary guideline development panels charged with generating recommendations based on comprehensive systematic reviews of the evidence. The IOM standards will guide the APA as it generates CPGs that can be used to inform the general public and the practice community regarding the benefits and harms of various treatment options. CPG recommendations are advisory rather than compulsory. When used appropriately, high-quality guidelines can facilitate shared decision making and identify gaps in knowledge.

Finding the common core: evidence-based practices, clinically relevant evidence, and core mechanisms of change.

Improving the quality of children's mental health care can benefit from the adoption of evidence based and evidence informed treatments. However, the promise of moving science into practice is hampered by three core elements that need to be addressed in the current conversation among key stakeholders: (1) expanding our understanding of the clinical relevance of different types of evidence, (2) emphasizing the identification of core mechanisms of change, and (3) re-conceptualizing what evidence-based practice means. This paper focuses on these elements in an attempt to find a common core among stakeholders that may create opportunities for more inclusive conversation to move the field of children's mental health care forward.

The adoption and implementation of an evidence based practice in child and family mental health services organizations: a pilot study of functional family therapy in New York State.

Numerous challenges persist in providing evidence-based treatments to children and families in community-based settings. Functional Family Therapy (FFT), one such evidence-based treatment, is a family prevention and intervention program for adolescents with conduct disorder or oppositional defiant disorder. This paper presents pilot data in support of a conceptual framework explaining the adoption and implementation of FFT in a small sample of family and child mental health services organizations in New York State. The conceptual framework is grounded in the diffusion of innovations and the organizational behavior literatures, as well as previously published accounts of the adoption and implementation of evidence-based treatments in mental health. Pilot study data demonstrated that factors associated with the adoption of FFT included: The program fitting with the mission of the organization, as well as the organization having a strong interest in evidence-based treatments. Once a decision to adopt FFT was made, the degree to which it fit with organizational characteristics (e.g., available resource sets, organizational structure, and culture) influenced the ease with which it was implemented. Implications for the adoption and implementation of other evidence-based treatments are discussed.

The implementation and the cultural adjustment of functional family therapy in a Dutch psychiatric day-treatment center.

Because of the increasing severity of adolescent problem behavior, evidence-based practices are becoming of interest as an alternative to traditional treatment with the behavior problems of adolescents in juvenile justice settings. Despite interest in evidence-based practices, questions exist regarding whether or not evidence-based intervention models can be successfully transported to cultures other than those in which they were developed. This article describes the transportation process of an American evidence-based family therapy (Functional Family Therapy [FFT]) into the service delivery system of a psychiatric day treatment center for juvenile delinquents in Amsterdam. The characteristics of FFT that make it cross-culturally sensitive are discussed. Results from the changes in service delivery suggest FFT can be successfully implemented in international settings with adjustments to make the model fit the culture(s) of The Netherlands without changing the model of FFT itself.

Beyond common factors: multilevel-process models of therapeutic change in marriage and family therapy.

A number of scholars have proposed the common factors perspective as the future direction of marriage and family therapy (MFT). Although intuitively appealing, the case for the common factors perspective is not as clear-cut as proponents portray. In its current form, the common factors perspective overlooks the multilevel nature of practice, the diversity of clients and settings, and the complexity of therapeutic change. In contrast, comprehensive process-based change models are an alternative to the limitations of common factors. In this article, we consider the limitations of the common factors perspective and propose the necessary and sufficient components and processes that might comprise comprehensive, multilevel, process-based therapeutic change models in MFT.

Implications of a moderated common factors approach: does it move the field forward?

There are a number of similarities between the moderated common factors proposal of Sprenkle and Blow (this issue) and the multilevel, process-based therapeutic change presentation of Sexton, Ridley, and Kleiner (this issue). Despite these areas of agreement there are fundamental differences in our respective positions. We suspect that these differences are not unique to the respective authors, but instead represent the current debate in the field regarding common factors. In this commentary, we discuss what we think are important issues to have emerged from these articles. Our hope is that the issues we present below will take the debate and discussion one step further.