Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
References for this paper are not available at this time. We will be adding them shortly, thank you for your patience.
This article is only available in the PDF format. Download the PDF to view the article, as well as its associated figures and tables. Abstract Over the past quarter century, psychiatry and other professions concerned with the treatment of mental illness have experienced an almost explosive proliferation of new therapeutic tools, techniques, and programs offered in the hope and belief that they will increase the effectiveness of the overall therapeutic effort. Some of these have been found wanting after relatively brief periods of utilization and have faded into oblivion, while others have attracted greater or lesser numbers of proponents and have achieved the status of standard components in the modern therapeutic repertory. Unfortunately, whatever their fate, the evaluation of these new approaches has been, for the most part, largely impressionistic. The carefully controlled, research-oriented evaluation study which clearly delineates in a quantifiable, controlled, and statistically valid way the benefits accruing from their use has been rare indeed. This state of affairs has been a source of major concern to that segment
Archives of General Psychiatry – American Medical Association
Published: Nov 1, 1967
Read and print from thousands of top scholarly journals.
Already have an account? Log in
Bookmark this article. You can see your Bookmarks on your DeepDyve Library.
To save an article, log in first, or sign up for a DeepDyve account if you don’t already have one.
Copy and paste the desired citation format or use the link below to download a file formatted for EndNote
Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
All DeepDyve websites use cookies to improve your online experience. They were placed on your computer when you launched this website. You can change your cookie settings through your browser.