Evidence-Based Practice in Clinical Psychology: A Case for Use
This paper argues that clinicians should use evidence-based practices (EBP) when working with clients, despite the difficulties some practitioners face in implementing such models. Drawing on scholarship in psychology and mental health, the paper traces EBP's origins in medicine and its growing adoption in clinical psychology. It contends that EBP reduces errors in clinical judgment, improves patient outcomes by constraining treatment choices to research-supported interventions, and has demonstrated effectiveness in treating serious mental illness. The paper also acknowledges EBP's limitations, noting that it does not resolve all questions of policy and practice, while maintaining that its overall contribution to clinical care remains significant.
- Introduction to Evidence-Based Practice: EBP origins in medicine and core definition
- Origins and Core Components of EBP: EBP adoption in psychology and implementation challenges
- Why Clinicians Should Use Evidence-Based Practices: Central argument for EBP use in clinical settings
- EBP and the Treatment of Serious Mental Illness: EBP effectiveness with serious mental illness clients
- Research-Driven Service Delivery in Psychology: Psychology field's shift toward research-based practice
- Limitations and Balanced Application of EBP: EBP limitations and measured clinical application
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- The paper opens with a clear thesis — that clinicians should use evidence-based practices despite implementation difficulties — and sustains that argument consistently throughout.
- It balances advocacy for EBP with an honest acknowledgment of its limitations, giving the argument intellectual credibility rather than reading as one-sided advocacy.
- Each body paragraph advances the central claim through a distinct supporting point, moving from general origins to specific applications (serious mental illness) to broader policy implications.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper demonstrates concession-and-rebuttal argumentation. It acknowledges that evidence-based practice does not address all policy and practice concerns (citing Mullen & Streiner, 2004), then immediately reasserts the value of EBP in reducing clinical errors. This technique strengthens the overall argument by showing awareness of counterevidence without abandoning the central claim.
Structure breakdown
The paper follows a classic argumentative structure: an introductory section defines EBP and its origins in medicine; a transition paragraph establishes the central debate; the body builds the affirmative case through effectiveness in mental health and alignment with psychology's research-driven turn; and a closing paragraph introduces limitations before reaffirming the thesis. The references section cites three sources in APA format.
Introduction to Evidence-Based Practice
Evidence-based practice is a concept that emerged in the field of medicine to help reduce mistakes and errors during treatment. This concept seeks to achieve that goal by ensuring clinical decisions are grounded in the best available research evidence. Since its emergence, evidence-based practice has become common in the medical field and is consistently used to improve patient outcomes. The tremendous success of this concept in medicine is attributable to its integration of three elements: the best available research evidence, clinical judgment and expertise, and patient preferences and values.
Origins and Core Components of EBP
Given its success in the field of medicine, evidence-based practice is being imported into the field of psychology (Lilienfeld, 2014). This trend emerges from the need for clinicians to utilize the most suitable and effective mechanisms to improve their clients' outcomes. Current evidence suggests that utilizing interventions that have been shown to work with specific symptomology is optimal. However, clinicians experience difficulties in implementing and working from an evidence-based model. Since clinicians face challenges in implementing such a model, there are concerns about whether practitioners should use evidence-based practices when working with clients.
References
Lilienfeld, S. (2014, January 27). Evidence-based practice: The misunderstandings continue. Psychology Today. https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-skeptical-psychologist/201401/evidence-based-practice-the-misunderstandings-continue
Mullen, E. J., & Streiner, D. L. (2004). The evidence for and against evidence-based practice. Brief Treatment and Crisis Intervention, 4(2), 111–121.
Rosenberg, J., & Rosenberg, S. J. (2013). Community mental health: Challenges for the 21st century (2nd ed.). Routledge.
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.