The purpose of this study is to examine the attitudes and beliefs of art therapists towards Evidence-Based Practices (EBP). EBP is a rising trend in healthcare that refers to the process of using empirically validated research to make clinical decisions that best meet the needs of each client (Patterson, Miller, Carnes & Wilson, 2004).The investigators used a mixed methods approach to the research topic. Part A consists of a survey distributed to graduates of the Department of Marital and Family Therapy (MFT) at Loyola Marymount University (LMU). In addition to answering questions, survey participants were asked to create an art response depicting their perspective on the relationship between art therapy and EBP. In the second phase (Part B), the researchers used an arts-based methodology to further explore the findings from Part A. Part B involved the creation of key idea cards pulled from the literature review and the findings, individual art responses by each investigator, and verbal and written analyses of the content and process. The idea that art therapists are already integrating EBP and art therapy in their practices emerged as the major finding of the research. This realization that clinicians are already at the intersection of EBP and art therapy was a contrast to the cautious divided attitudes that were discovered in the literature review. Further research could not only strengthen the evidence base of art therapy, but also illuminate how exactly therapists have managed to bridge the gap between EBP and art therapy.

Text in English / The inception of psychology as a practicing profession in 1938 brought with it a continuing scientific struggle geared towards cementing its place as a value-adding health service in the form of psychotherapy. Concepts such as Empirically Supported Treatments (ESTs), Evidence Based Treatments (EBTs) and Evidence Based Practice in Psychology (EBPP) arose out of research attempts to scientifically prove the efficacy of psychological treatment versus psychiatric medications or versus no treatment. This focus on evidence in psychotherapy partly stems from, but also influences public policy in the form of practice and training mandates as well as government and insurance funding policies for psychotherapy. At present ESTs, EBTs and EBPP are the source of polarisation among psychologists who argue for either sides of this controversy, raising questions on a practical/policy level as well as an epistemological level. This thesis differentiates between ESTs, EBTs and EBPP as well as the Common Factors approach and continues to critically investigate the advantages, practical/policy implications and epistemological critiques against these approaches. Some of the identified shortfalls resulting from unwarranted epistemological (empirical) assumptions are addressed by proposing a social constructionist model of therapeutic factors based on social constructionist- and eco-systemic theories. The proposed model allows therapists to employ EBT’s in conjunction with various other (excluded) approaches that are available in their arsenal of treatments. Clinical case studies are used to illustrate the model’s practical operation in therapeutic contexts. / Psychology / Ph.D. (Psychology)

Text in English / The inception of psychology as a practicing profession in 1938 brought with it a continuing scientific struggle geared towards cementing its place as a value-adding health service in the form of psychotherapy. Concepts such as Empirically Supported Treatments (ESTs), Evidence Based Treatments (EBTs) and Evidence Based Practice in Psychology (EBPP) arose out of research attempts to scientifically prove the efficacy of psychological treatment versus psychiatric medications or versus no treatment. This focus on evidence in psychotherapy partly stems from, but also influences public policy in the form of practice and training mandates as well as government and insurance funding policies for psychotherapy. At present ESTs, EBTs and EBPP are the source of polarisation among psychologists who argue for either sides of this controversy, raising questions on a practical/policy level as well as an epistemological level. This thesis differentiates between ESTs, EBTs and EBPP as well as the Common Factors approach and continues to critically investigate the advantages, practical/policy implications and epistemological critiques against these approaches. Some of the identified shortfalls resulting from unwarranted epistemological (empirical) assumptions are addressed by proposing a social constructionist model of therapeutic factors based on social constructionist- and eco-systemic theories. The proposed model allows therapists to employ EBT’s in conjunction with various other (excluded) approaches that are available in their arsenal of treatments. Clinical case studies are used to illustrate the model’s practical operation in therapeutic contexts. / Psychology / Ph.D. (Psychology)