دانلود مقاله ISI انگلیسی شماره 30456
عنوان فارسی مقاله

تجزیه و تحلیل انتقادی از دو روش هنردرمانی خلاق

کد مقاله سال انتشار مقاله انگلیسی ترجمه فارسی تعداد کلمات
30456 1996 7 صفحه PDF سفارش دهید محاسبه نشده
خرید مقاله
پس از پرداخت، فوراً می توانید مقاله را دانلود فرمایید.
عنوان انگلیسی
A critical analysis of two creative arts therapies
منبع

Publisher : Elsevier - Science Direct (الزویر - ساینس دایرکت)

Journal : The Arts in Psychotherapy, Volume 23, Issue 5, 1996, Pages 375–381

کلمات کلیدی
- تجزیه و تحلیل انتقادی ا - روش هنردرمانی - خلاق -
پیش نمایش مقاله
پیش نمایش مقاله تجزیه و تحلیل انتقادی از دو روش هنردرمانی خلاق

چکیده انگلیسی

Pergamon The Arts in Psychotherapy, Vol. 23, No. 5, pp. 375-381, 1997 Copyright 0 1997 Elsevier Science Ltd Printed in the USA. All rights reserved 0197-4556/97 $15.00 + .OO PII SO197-4556(96)00056-l A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF TWO CREATIVE ARTS THERAPIES LAURA R. BURLEIGH and LARRY E. BEUTLER, PhD* Despite both the widespread use of the creative arts therapies in clinical settings and the extensive theo- retical literature devoted to this topic, little empirical research has been devoted to assessing the scientific validity of the many claims made for these interven- tions. Art therapy procedures are typically justified on the clinical rather than empirical grounds and those who criticize their scientific bases frequently open themselves to criticism for failing to appreciate the “therapeutic potential” (Gibson, 1980, p. 6) of these interventions. However, without a solid grounding in empirical research, whatever potential is present may go unrealized. The purpose of this paper is to analyze critically extant empirical research around the ques- tion of whether this evidence warrants scientific veri- fication of these procedures and, where it does not, to suggest research directions that might later determine if these interventions constitute effective treatments. The Criteria of Validity The question of what constitutes adequate evi- dence of empirical validation is critical to the trans- portation of scientific findings into practice. The field traditionally has been reluctant to provide a precise definition of when an empirical finding has been ob- served with sufficient repetition and clarity as to sup- port their translation to practice. Not surprisingly, therefore, the recent Task Force on the Promotion and Dissemination of Psychological Procedures, con- vened by the Division of Clinical Psychology of the American Psychological Association, stimulated con- siderable controversy by applying a definition bor- rowed from the Federal Drug Administration (see Chambless et al. 1996). Despite the many critiques and arguments raised about this definition, none have advanced an alternative one. Hence, the Division 12 Task Force criteria remain the clearest and the most obvious standard available for the present purposes. The Task Force on Promotion and Dissemination of Psychological Procedures (Chambless, et al. 1996) was assembled in 1993 with an explicit commission to identify those treatments that have been established as effective on empirical grounds. They initially estab- lished working criteria to ensure that treatments were reliably offered, that comparisons were minimally bi- ased and that their efficacy for treating clinical prob- lems was demonstrated. These criteria required the presence of two independent, randomized clinical trial studies that demonstrated the superiority of the treat- ment over a placebo, non-treatment or an alternative treatment procedure. To ensure an accurate definition of the treatments the task force required both that these studies employed explicit treatment manuals and that they be based on samples of clearly estab- lished and defined patient groups. The criteria reflect a belief, on the part of the task force, that controlled outcome studies are the research methods best posi- tioned to assess treatment efficacy, to affect policy decisions governing a treatment’s use and to influence clinical activities. When undertaking our own review, we restricted our search to published, empirically based reports, resisting the impulse to review in a comprehensive *Laura Burleigh is a graduate student in School Psychology in the Counseling/Clinical/School Psychology Program at the University of California, Santa Barbara. Larry Beutler is Professor and Director of the Counseling/Clinical/School Psychology Program at the University of California, Santa Barbara. 375

خرید مقاله
پس از پرداخت، فوراً می توانید مقاله را دانلود فرمایید.