This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Reply to article  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citation map  • Citing articles on HighWire  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in this journal  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Scientific Art or Artistic Science?

Richard M. Glass, MD

Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1984;41(5):525-526.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text PDF and any section headings.

Reputations, especially bad ones, are hard to live down, as any Chicagoan who travels learns only too well. Nevertheless, readers should be pleased to note that the "unscientific" reputation of psychotherapy has been challenged once again by two studies reported in this issue of the ARCHIVES. Both studies are characterized by a rigorous application of scientific research methodology, including careful experimental design and sophisticated statistical analyses, to the study of this treatment modality.

See also pp 431 and 438.

This is hardly a new development, despite the impression created several years ago by the highly publicized US Congressional foray into psychotherapy.^1,2 Excellent reviews of the history of psychotherapy research can be found in a recent American Psychiatric Association monograph on this topic³ and in an article by Garfield.⁴ These sources surveyed the increasing number and quality of psychotherapy outcome studies, both before and after Eysenck's provocative assertion . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

Author Affiliations
From the Department of Psychiatry, University of Chicago.

Footnotes
Accepted for publication Jan 10, 1984.

Reprint requests to Department of Psychiatry, University of Chicago, Box 411, 5841 S Maryland Ave, Chicago, IL 60637 (Dr Glass).

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?