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
