{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02057696187210006, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0022190841234617713, 'mean_word_length': 4.980699638118215, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 1, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The "Multiplier Effect": Art Therapy Research That Benefits All

154 Think of research as a fishing line thrown into a river of potential benefits, where a well designed study hooks a little fish that, in turn, attracts a larger fish to nourish many people. Even a relatively small research study, when precisely focused on an existing need with a demonstrable benefit, can jumpstart a whole movement of interacting demands for art therapy services in different quarters. Here is a case in point: In the summer of 2005, the American Art Therapy Association strengthened its research agenda by pairing experts in academic research with experts in governmental affairs, professional relations, and art therapy practitioners in a target population that was likely to grow (Kaiser, et al., 2005). The target was art therapy services for veterans with posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). The thinking behind it was that art therapists working with veterans were reporting success but few funding sources knew about it. Even if they had, there was little hard evidence government and other agencies could use to justify putting scarce resources into art therapy. How could we demonstrate the efficacy of art therapy as a preferred treatment for veterans? Our usual thought process, I believe, would be to recognize that research outcomes might support art therapists working with veterans but, at the same time, fail to take that thought further. In reality, every client receiving art therapy would benefit from such research because of the “multiplier effect”: Demonstrable success in a target population creates new perceptions up and down a whole chain of interconnecting funding sources, and generalizes to all other kinds of art therapy services and needs. The same cannot be said of art therapy research that has traditionally focused on what drawings mean. Outcomes research simply asks “Did it work? Does the client feel better as a result?” For those in positions of influence to advance treatment options that benefit the most clients with the greatest need, the question might be: Does art therapy work better or faster than some other approach? In the United States and the world today, most people will experience a traumatic event sometime in their lives. If art therapy helps a combat veteran suffering from PTSD feel better, would it help non-veterans with PTSD, or abused women or children, or at-risk adolescents, or elders? If it helps veterans in the United States returning from the war in Iraq, would it benefit other survivors of war and trauma around the globe? We live in an interconnecting world but tend to approach such an enterprise as individuals inside our comfort zones, advancing well-worn knowledge shared only with other art therapists. Research that benefits every art therapy client requires scrutiny from peers outside our ranks who have a stake in what we are doing. One key strategy in creating the groundwork for the first major clinical outcomes study by the American Art Therapy Association was intentional collaboration with non-researchers from the realms of governmental affairs and professional relations, and known researchers in other fields. Not simply the generation of knowledge but its dissemination throughout a network of legislators, funding sources, and the public turns art therapy research into services for clients. From my own work in legislative strategy, I have seen art therapy gain “traction” and credibility when its strongest advocates are non-art therapist experts and valued constituents who have directly benefited from art therapy. If, in your practice, you truly wanted to help not just your client but every art therapy client in every other art therapist’s practice, how would you go about it? Imagine how far-reaching your work would be if you cultivated this potent idea. Art therapists do something every day that could, in fact, change the world: Practitioners know the results of their work and see them all the time. If the goal of the intervention is to feel better, did it happen? How can you show that it did? Art therapists are adept at designing creative interventions and there is no doubt that the same skills could be applied to creating simple tools to measure their clients’ responses. In hundreds of settings all over, art therapists have partnered with other members of the treatment team to show and articulate the results of their work. Why, then, is this knowledge not disseminated and we do not have the evidence we need collectively to advance art therapy? It seems that a crucial, missing step is to ask who else needs to know about your achievements. This is known as the “multiplier effect” in my community art therapy work with health care colleagues in Central America. Their cultural values dictate that no one holds back knowledge from which others may benefit. In communities where resources The “Multiplier Effect”: Art Therapy Research That Benefits All