On necessity and sufficiency in counseling and psychotherapy (revisited)

It seems to me that Carl Rogers was far too ambitious in trying to specify general conditions of necessity and sufficiency that would be relevant to the entire spectrum of problems and the diverse expectancies and personalities of the people who seek our help. Rogers' position and orientation almost totally overlook the array of problems under the rubric of "response deficits" that stem from misinformation and missing information and call for active correction, training, and retraining. Rogers also paid scant attention to problems with significant biological determinants. Nevertheless, as exemplified by his seminal 1957 article and many other articles and books, Rogers made major contributions within the domain of the therapeutic alliance. Today, the scientific emphasis looks at accountability, the need to establish various treatments of choice, and the need to understand their presumed mechanisms. Treatment efficacy and generalizability across different methodologies are now considered key issues. The efficacy narrowing and clinically self-limiting consequences of adhering to one particular school of thought are now self-evident to most.