The history and steps leading up to the current criteria
By Dawson Church
When people ask, “Why isn’t EFT on the American Psychological Association Division 12 (Clinical Psychology)’s list of empirically supported psychological treatments?”—the answer is both simple and revealing.
It’s not because Emotional Freedom Techniques (EFT) lack scientific evidence. It’s because Division 12 changed its definition of what counts as a “psychological treatment.”
This article explains how that happened—step by step—from the first Division 12 standards in the 1990s to the current policy. You’ll see that EFT met every empirical requirement at each step of the way.
The gatekeepers in Division 12 eventually resorted to re-defining a “psychological treatment” to exclude any body-based treatment, not just EFT, as “non-psychological.”
1 | How It All Began: The Chambless Task Force
In the early 1990s, the APA’s Division 12 (Clinical Psychology) convened a Task Force on Empirically Validated Treatments. Led by psychologist Diane L. Chambless, the group sought to establish objective standards for determining whether a therapy could be considered “empirically supported.”
Between 1996 and 1998, the Task Force published a landmark series of papers (Chambless et al., 1996; Chambless & Hollon, 1998). These publications became the foundation for what is now known as evidence-based practice in psychology.
They defined “efficacious” (well-established) therapies as those supported by at least two high-quality randomized controlled trials (RCTs) conducted by independent investigators showing superiority to placebo or another treatment. Therapies with promising but smaller evidence bases were called “probably efficacious.”
2 | The Seven Chambless Standards
The Division 12 standards can be summarized as seven essential criteria (Energy Psychology, 2017). To be considered empirically validated, a treatment must meet all seven:
- Randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Participants are randomly assigned to treatment or comparison conditions.
- Adequate sample size. Enough participants to detect statistically significant differences (p < .05).
- Clearly defined population. Participants are diagnosed or screened with validated tools by qualified clinicians.
- Reliable, valid assessment tools. Measures used must have demonstrated reliability and validity.
- Blind assessment. Interviewers assessing outcomes must be blind to treatment condition.
- Treatment manual or procedural clarity. A manual or equivalent description defines exactly how the therapy is conducted.
- Sufficiently reported data. Results, sample sizes, and statistical details must be transparent for replication and review.
Under these standards, “efficacious” meant at least two independent RCTs showing statistical superiority (typically p < .05). “Highly significant” effects meant p < .001 — less than a 1 in 1,000 chance results were due to random variation.
The Chambless framework gave researchers a clear roadmap. For EFT researchers, such as those at the National Institute for Integrative Healthcare (NIIH.org), it offered a way to demonstrate that the method’s effects could be verified by the same standards used for cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT), exposure therapy, or any other mainstream psychological treatment.
3 | EFT Research Designed Around APA Criteria
After 2000, the EFT and Energy Psychology research communities began conducting randomized controlled trials explicitly designed to meet Division 12 standards.
Examples include:
- Church et al. (2013) – a randomized controlled trial showing significant improvement in trauma symptoms among combat veterans treated with EFT.
- Church & Nelms (2016) – a randomized controlled dismantling study demonstrating measurable benefits for pain, range of motion, and psychological symptoms in people with frozen shoulder.
By 2012, multiple RCTs had been published, and there was sufficient evidence to have EFT listed on the Division 12 list of empirically validated therapies.
That year, I (Dawson Church) wrote to David Klonsky, then editor of the website, summarizing the data and formally requesting EFT’s inclusion. Klonsky acknowledged the request but noted that the site was being revised, and consideration would have to wait until the revision was complete.
In 2013 I renewed the request with his successor, Evan Forman, including a comprehensive review of the published studies. Forman responded that EFT “did not qualify,” but offered no explanation. Further correspondence went unanswered even as new peer-reviewed research continued to appear.
4 | 2015 — The Tolin Criteria: Raising the Bar
In 2015, Division 12 revised its evaluation standards. David Tolin and colleagues published new guidelines (Tolin et al., 2015) that placed even greater emphasis on the number and quality of randomized controlled trials and meta-analyses supporting each therapy.
These “Tolin Criteria” were soon used in the Division’s official PTSD treatment guideline (Courtois et al., 2017).
The intent was to increase scientific rigor. Yet the side effect was predictable: older therapies with many decades of accumulated studies gained an advantage, while newer or innovative therapies—like EFT—had fewer published RCTs simply because their research programs were younger.
As Norcross and Wampold (2019, p. 393) observed:
“The difference in recommendations resides in the number of RCTs conducted on each treatment. If numbers are good, more numbers must prove better! We understand the decision to elevate those trauma psychotherapies that possess more studies—‘strength of evidence’—to the category of strongly recommended. However, at the risk of stating the obvious, more studies do not mean more effectiveness…. Practitioners seek what is effective for their patients, not what is most studied.”
This critical insight underscores a key point: evidence quality matters more than evidence quantity.
5 | The 2021 – 2023 EFT Submission to APA
In 2021, psychologist Peta Stapleton, PhD of Bond University formally initiated the process to have Emotional Freedom Techniques reviewed by Division 12’s Committee on Science and Practice (SCP) as an empirically supported treatment for PTSD.
The Application Timeline
- Oct 2021 – Mar 2023 SCP approved EFT for review. A comprehensive submission included the latest meta-analysis of Clinical EFT for PTSD.
- Mar 2023 All requested revisions were completed; EFT met every methodological requirement under the Tolin Criteria.
- Apr 2023 Just one week later, SCP announced that it was changing its criteria. A new task force would redefine what qualifies as a “psychological treatment.”
6 | The New Definition: A Philosophical Barrier
Over the following year, SCP redefined “psychological treatment” to require that its mechanisms of change be founded in psychological science—as the committee chose to define it.
This revision explicitly excluded any method containing a somatic or physiological component.
EFT, which includes gentle tapping on acupuncture points while engaging in exposure and cognitive reframing, therefore no longer fit the new definition. It wasn’t rejected for lack of evidence; it was disqualified because of the presence of a somatic element.
In other words, Division 12 decided that because EFT involves acupoint stimulation, its mechanism of action was not sufficiently “psychological”—even though EFT’s cognitive and exposure elements are textbook psychological techniques, and its outcomes are consistent with other evidence-based therapies for trauma, anxiety, and depression.
7 | The Appeal Process (2024 – 2025)
Between May 2024 and August 2025, a detailed appeal challenged the new definition and requested that EFT be reviewed under the criteria in effect when the application began.
In May 2024, a scholarly Commentary on the issue was accepted for publication in Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, SCP’s flagship journal (Feinstein, 2024). It demonstrated that the phrase “founded in psychological science” would, if applied consistently, also disqualify many existing therapies on the Division 12 list—including CBT and DBT—which emerged primarily from clinical innovation rather than basic psychological theory.
The authors also showed that the new definition had been selectively applied to disqualify EFT while leaving other mixed or integrative approaches untouched.
Despite this evidence, in October 2025 the SCP Executive Board denied the appeal, stating that all current and future therapies will be evaluated under the new definition, regardless of when they were submitted.
8 | Current Status
As a result of this history, EFT has at no time been listed by the APA’s Society of Clinical Psychology (Division 12) as an empirically supported psychological treatment, from it first qualifying in 2012 to the decision of the SCP Executive Board in 2025.
The reason is not insufficient data, inadequate research design, or a failure to meet either the Chambless or Tolin standards. The exclusion has been accomplished through a definitional change excluding methods with somatic or physiological components.
EFT thus occupies an unusual position: it meets international empirical standards but lies outside Division 12’s narrowed definition of “psychological.”
9 | What This Means in Practice
EFT remains evidence-based worldwide
- Meets APA’s own Tolin Criteria for empirical rigor (2015 framework).
- Recognized by NICE (UK), the National Registry of Evidence-Based Programs and Practices (NREPP US), and found by numerous peer-reviewed meta-analyses as effective for PTSD, anxiety, and depression.
- The evidence base continues to grow across clinical, physiological, and neurobiological domains.
The barrier is philosophical, not scientific
Division 12’s stance defines what counts as psychological, not what works. The decision represents a line drawn between “mind-only” approaches and those integrating mind–body mechanisms.
The larger trend: Integrative science
Modern neuroscience confirms that emotion, cognition, and physiology are deeply intertwined. Brain-imaging studies of EFT show modulation of amygdala and hippocampal activity—core emotion-regulation regions—while cortisol studies demonstrate systemic stress-reduction effects. In this sense, EFT’s outcomes are fully consistent with contemporary psychobiology (Church et al., 2018).
10 | Why the Distinction Matters
For many psychologists, inclusion on the Division 12 list influences training curricula, insurance coverage, and public perception. When a therapy is excluded, readers may wrongly assume it “lacks evidence.”
In EFT’s case, that assumption would be false. The empirical record is strong. What changed was the definition of “psychological treatment.”
This episode also raises broader questions:
- Should evidence-based practice prioritize mechanism definitions or measured outcomes?
- Should innovative therapies be penalized because their mechanisms bridge body and mind?
- How can psychology evolve to include integrative, neuroscience-informed methods within its evidence frameworks?
11 | Timeline Summary
Year / Date | Event |
Early 1990s | APA Division 12 forms Task Force on Empirically Validated Treatments. |
1996-1998 | Chambless et al. publish the original standards defining “well-established” and “probably efficacious” treatments. |
2000-2010 | EFT researchers design RCTs explicitly following Chambless criteria. |
2012 | Dawson Church formally requests EFT listing from Division 12. |
2013 | Second request sent to editor Evan Forman; EFT still not listed. |
2015 | Tolin et al. publish updated “Tolin Criteria” emphasizing RCT quantity. |
2021 | Peta Stapleton formally submits EFT for review under Tolin Criteria. |
Oct 2021 – Mar 2023 | SCP approves review; updated meta-analysis submitted. |
Mar 2023 | EFT meets all empirical requirements under Tolin Criteria. |
Apr 2023 | SCP announces new task force redefining “psychological treatment.” |
May 2024 – Aug 2025 | Appeal filed challenging definitional change; commentary accepted in Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice. |
Oct 2025 | SCP denies appeal; applies new definition retroactively and prospectively. |
Present | EFT remains unlisted—not for lack of efficacy, but due to definitional exclusion. |
12 | In Summary
EFT (Emotional Freedom Techniques) meets every empirical standard for evidence-based practice recognized internationally.
It satisfies the APA’s own scientific benchmarks under the 2015 Tolin Criteria. It demonstrates statistically significant outcomes across more than 80 randomized controlled trials and 200 peer-reviewed studies. It is accepted and recommended by independent regulatory bodies outside the U.S.
EFT’s exclusion from the APA Division 12 list reflects philosophy, not science—a shift from evaluating evidence to redefining what counts as “psychological.”
13 | Moving Forward
At EFT Universe, we continue to train practitioners and researchers who uphold the highest scientific standards. Our mission is to bridge the gap between rigorous empirical evidence and the lived experience of healing—honoring both psychological and physiological dimensions of change.
If you’re a clinician, coach, or researcher who believes in integrative, evidence-based healing, explore our training programs and publications.
Learn More About EFT Certification and Research →
References
American Psychological Association [APA]. (2021). Division 12 list of empirically supported treatments. Retrieved from https://div12.org/treatments
Chambless, D. L., & Hollon, S. D. (1998). Defining empirically supported therapies. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 66(1), 7–18. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.66.1.7
Chambless, D. L., et al. (1996). Update on empirically validated therapies. Clinical Psychologist, 49(2), 5–18.
Church, D., Hawk, C., Brooks, A. J., Toukolehto, O., Wren, M., Dinter, I., & Stein, P. (2013). Psychological trauma symptom improvement in veterans using emotional freedom techniques: A randomized controlled trial. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 201(2), 153–160.
Church, D., & Nelms, J. (2016). Pain, range of motion, and psychological symptoms in a population with frozen shoulder: A randomized controlled dismantling study of clinical EFT. Archives of Scientific Psychology, 4(1), 38–48.
Courtois, C. A., et al. (2017). Treatment guidelines for PTSD under the Tolin Criteria. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 24(3), 216–238.
Energy Psychology. (2017). Summary of Division 12 criteria for empirically supported treatments.
Feinstein, D. (2025). Dismissing the body from psychological treatment: Commentary on Tolin et al.(2024). Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 32(3), 232–236.
Norcross, J. C., & Wampold, B. E. (2019). The tragedy of the APA Clinical Practice Guideline. Psychotherapy, 56(3), 391–399. https://doi.org/10.1037/pst0000231
Tolin, D. F., McKay, D., Forman, E. M., Klonsky, E. D., & Thase, M. E. (2015). Empirically supported treatment criteria revised. Behavior Therapy, 46(6), 756–770.
Meta Description (for SEO):
Why is EFT not listed by APA Division 12 as an empirically supported treatment? Discover the real story behind the Division 12’s decision, and how EFT meets all scientific criteria.
