PUBLICATION PATTERNS OF FACUTLY IN COMMISION ON ACCREDITATION FOR MARRIAGE AND FAMILY THERAPY EDUCATION PROGRAMS

Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, Jan 2005 by Hawley, Dale R, Gonzalez, Chris

Journal articles published by faculty in Commission on Accreditation for Marriage and Family Therapy Education (COAMFTE) programs from 1998 to 2002 were analyzed to determine patterns regarding the amount and type of research conducted by this group. Fifty-eight percent of the articles were identified as research. Slightly more than 10% of these dealt with clinical processes and outcomes. Forty percent of studies reported a specific source of funding. Twenty-nine percent of research articles used qualitative methods, with percentages rising over the course of time. Results suggest the average number of publications per faculty member was relatively low, particularly for senior faculty. Implications for these findings are discussed.

The last few years have seen a great deal of attention devoted to the state of research in marriage and family therapy (MFT). Driven by the interests of third party payers, the advances of related disciplines, and the desire to equip competent therapists, clinical research has been closely examined to determine what it is telling us about the effectiveness of intervening with couples and families. Some of this news has been good. Several reviews and meta-analyses (Friedlander, 1998; Liddle & Rowe, 2003; Pinsof & Wynne, 1995; Shadish, Ragsdale, Glaser, & Montgomery, 1995; Sprenkle, 2002) conclude that MFT is an effective means of treatment for a wide variety of populations including depression, eating disorders, alcohol and drug abuse, adult schizophrenia, and adolescent behavioral disorders. In short, the message of these overviews is that family therapy works.

However, the state of research in MFT has also been heavily critiqued. One concern is whether research on the efficacy of family therapy accurately represents the way clinicians actually practice. Sprenkle (2002) calls this "the challenge of transportability" (p. 18), indicating that most research is conducted in closely controlled labs that do not resemble agency settings where therapy is generally done. Pinsof and Wynne (2000) distinguish between efficacy and effectiveness research. The former requires several criteria to limit the effects of extraneous variables including treatment and control groups, random assignment of subjects, manualized treatment, and the use of standardized outcome measures. Therapists in the real world, however, do not operate in conditions such as these and are often more eclectic in their approach than efficacy studies would allow. Pinsof and Wynne call for more effectiveness research, which seeks to move investigations from the lab to the clinic, loosening research requirements to replicate more closely how therapists actually practice. Addison, Sandberg, Corby, Robila, and Platt (2002) review several alternative methodologies that may prove helpful in pursuing this goal.

A second concern is that the gap between family therapy researchers and practitioners continues. Nearly 30 years ago, Olson ( 1976) called on therapists to combine a blend of theory, research, and practice. But recent authors suggest this ideal is far from reality. In her farewell editorial as editor of Family Process, Anderson (2003) posits that most clinicians do not see a connection between family therapy research and their practices. She states "My guess is that most family clinicians and even those conducting family training programs are relatively unfamiliar with current family research" (p. 324). At the same time, she suggests many investigators dismiss clinical knowledge and skills as irrelevant. Sandberg, Johnson, Robila, and Miller (2002) found an overall lack of support among therapists for research participation in a survey of clinical members of the American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy (AAMFT). Of the 41% who responded to their survey, only about one-half indicated they would be willing to participate in a research project, citing time constraints and clinical relevance as two key barriers.

A contributing factor to this gap is that producers of research are often not associated with programs that train family therapists. Sprenkle (2002) notes that only six of 27 contributors to the recent volume he edited on the effectiveness of family therapy research were graduates of accredited MFT programs. Although this is slightly more than the last such effort to evaluate the state of family therapy research (Pinsof & Wynne, 1995), it strongly suggests that the people who train therapists are different from those who conduct the research. Part of this discrepancy is due to the apparent lack of research being conducted in clinical training programs. For example, McWey et al. (2002) conducted a survey of 26 Commission on Accreditation for Marriage and Family Therapy Education (COAMFTE) graduate programs that required a thesis or dissertation. They discovered that less than one-half the programs conducted clinic-based research that was not tied to a thesis or dissertation. Lack of resources and interest were cited as two key reasons why programs did not conduct more research in their clinical facilities.