Abstract
The randomized controlled clinical trial (RCT) is considered the type of methodological design with the greatest power to verify the efficacy of psychotherapies. However, especially from the second half of the twentieth century, many criticisms directed at the epistemological conceptions underlying the so-called “hard sciences” have also affected the studies that adopted this design. This article is a critical reflection on some of the objections made to randomized clinical trials, evaluating how and to what extent these trials could be configured as a valid scientific research strategy in this critical context. We concluded that the RCT should be used - as long as it is performed in a critical context - due to its pragmatic value, as a producer of predictions and interventions capable of solving clinical problems, inevitably defined and established from the particular point of view of a community.
Keywords:
randomized controlled trial; evidence-based practice; knowledge; pragmatism; behaviorism