A haphazard reading of McHugh and Barlow (2010).

Replies to comments on Do haphazard reviews provide sound directions for dissemination efforts? (see record 2010-24768-012) by Eileen Gambrill and Julia H. Littell on the current authors' article The dissemination and implementation of evidence-based psychological treatments: A review of current efforts (see record 2010-02208-010) by Kathryn R. McHugh and David H. Barlow. In their commentary, Gambrill and Littell (2010, this issue) suggested that we provided misleading guidance on the selection of treatments for dissemination in our recent article (McHugh & Barlow, February– March 2010) on the dissemination and implementation of evidence-based treatments. These authors misread our article as an affirmation of the evidence base of the treatments involved in the dissemination and implementation efforts we described. In fact, we explicitly disclaimed in the third paragraph that “we do not revisit controversies surrounding the identification or appropriateness of [evidence-based psychological treatments] . . . rather, we focus on the status and adequacy of [dissemination and implementation] efforts currently under way (McHugh & Barlow, 2010, p. 73). Thus, our review was not intended as a guideline for which treatments to disseminate, nor was it a thorough review of the evidence base for the treatments included in the efforts we reviewed. We chose several programs for illustrative purposes as representative efforts from three general domains: national, state, and investigator initiated. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)