Some clinical scientists are shifting from research on complete named therapy protocols to a more elemental approach—research on specific therapy components that contribute to therapy goals. To characterize and evaluate this emerging field, we systematically searched PsycINFO and Medline for studies evaluating therapy components. We identified 208 studies. In a scoping review, we map, explain, and critically appraise the seven research strategies employed: (a) expert opinion, (b) shared components, (c) associations between the presence of components and therapy effects, (d) associations between fidelity to components and therapy effects, (e) microtrials, (f) additive and dismantling trials, and (g) factorial experiments. Our examination reveals a need for (a) renewed emphasis on experimental trials (vs. meta-analyses testing associations less rigorously), (b) expanded efforts to locate components within the emerging fields of process-based and principle-guided psychotherapy, and (c) a shift from innovative stand-alone studies to development of a coherent science of therapy components.

一些临床科学家正在从对完整命名疗法方案的研究转向一种更基本的方法，即对有助于治疗目标的特定疗法成分的研究。为了表征和评估这一新兴领域，我们系统地搜索了PsycINFO和Medline，以评估治疗成分。我们确定了208项研究。在范围审查中，我们绘制，解释和批判性地评估了所采用的七种研究策略：（a）专家意见，（b）共享的成分，（c）成分的存在与治疗效果之间的关联，（d）忠诚度之间的关联成分和治疗效果，（e）微型试验，（f）附加和拆除试验，以及（g）析因试验。我们的检查表明，有必要（a）重新强调实验性试验（vs.