{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02433862433862434, 'fraction_numerical': 0.008465608465608466, 'mean_word_length': 5.905109489051095, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 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}}
Naturalistic Studies within Different Group Treatment Formats

The psychotherapeutic health care system of a country (and its historical roots) determines the practice of psychotherapy. Both the system and the resulting practice are closely linked with the accepted scientific paradigms. The recent literature on psychotherapy research has been largely determined by the debate about empirically validated treatments (EVT) (Slife, Williams, & Barlow, 2001). This debate has led to more rigorous research standards focusing on randomized controlled studies with specific and well-defined patient populations, whereas naturalistic research within different clinical fields has become less valued. Although a discussion about EVT is beginning in other countries (Strauss & Kächele, 1998), most of the contributions to the debate have come from North American authors, reflecting the North American health care system and psychotherapeutic practice.