An international, multi-disciplinary effort aims to identify evidence-based treatments (EBTs) or interventions. The goal of this effort is to identify specific techniques or programs that successfully target and change specific behaviors. In clinical psychology, EBTs are identified based on the outcomes of randomized controlled trials examining whether treatments outperform control or alternative treatment conditions. Treatment outcomes are measured in multiple ways. Consistently, different ways of gauging outcomes yield inconsistent conclusions. Historically, EBT research has not accounted for these inconsistencies. This paper highlights the implications of inconsistencies, describes a framework for redressing inconsistent findings, and illustrates how the framework guides future work examining how to administer and combine treatments to maximize treatment effects, and study treatments meta-analytically.
