{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.020250723240115717, 'fraction_numerical': 0.010607521697203472, 'mean_word_length': 5.528301886792453, '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}}
Expanding the lens of evidence-based practice in psychotherapy to include a common factors perspective: comment on Laska, Gurman, and Wampold.

Laska, Gurman, and Wampold (2014, pp. 467-481) raise a number of interesting arguments for clinical practice that involves the integration of the Common Factors and Empirically Supported Therapies perspectives. The merits, validity, and weaknesses in these arguments are discussed from a conceptual and empirical viewpoint. While we agree that the division in the field between the 2 approaches is excessive and interferes in the delivery of effective patient care, we highlight the important reasons to use unbiased, replicable assessments of treatment effects and interpretation when choosing a treatment approach. We emphasize the need to conduct empirical comparisons using study designs that allow us to vigorously test the influence of common factors over and beyond specific treatment ingredients, before we can more widely advocate for their necessary inclusion in existing treatments.