We are told that the therapy used must match the client. A deeper meaning here is that it must match both client and counselor. If a counselor is unfit to use a technique due to lack of knowledge or experience, obviously he or she should not use that method. I am not wholly convinced, though that the previous over-arching statement is complete.
I think that a therapy has to complete three hurdles in order to the usable and useful. The first has already been mentioned: The counselor must be both competent and comfortable with the method. The second step is to ensure that the client can grasp the therapy being "prescribed." Without such understanding it is obvious that the client would not benefit from therapy. The third stage here is much more difficult and might not necessarily differ all that much from the second. This step expects the theory being used to match the problem at hand. It might sound as if I am making a case for therapies that have empirical efficacy when matched with certain disorders. While I agree with that train of thought, I am not writing about that. Instead, I am writing about the specific problem's theoretical roots.
Seeing as how each person experiences stimuli differently, it is important to ascertain the form in which the problem has occurred. This is a difficult concept to explain. Let me put it this way: While some (or most) people would treat a phobia behaviorally, there are those that would treat it with psychodynamic psychotherapy. Perhaps this choice had more to do with steps one or two, but, nevertheless, the client becomes well quickly. In this situation, it seems that the therapist stumbled upon the third step. The phobia had a deeper meaning or root that only (or mainly) a psychodynamicist could have spurred to health.
While this description is amazingly inadequate, I am glad I got it down for future reference.
