Methods and Assessment Tools for Therapeutic Assignment in Psychotherapy: A Systematic Review

TL;DR

This paper reviews methods for matching clients to the right psychotherapy based on personal traits, highlighting the need for personalized approaches over traditional diagnosis-based methods.

Contribution

The study systematically reviews current methods and assessment tools for personalized therapeutic assignment in psychotherapy.

Findings

Key client variables for therapeutic matching include coping style, motivation, attachment style, and cultural background.

Assessment tools like MMPI and STS-CRF are used to inform therapeutic assignment decisions.

Most decision-making models are based on Western-centric research, limiting their applicability in diverse contexts.

Abstract

Psychotherapy has evolved from rigid frameworks to personalized approaches, recognizing that no single method works for all. This has increased focus on “therapeutic assignment,” which matches clients to specific therapies based on individual traits rather than diagnoses. Traditional selections often depend on therapist preference, while diagnoses alone poorly predict treatment response. This highlights the need for research-driven matching based on psychological, situational, cultural, and personal factors. In this systematic review, we analyzed existing methods, models, and assessment tools used to align clients with psychotherapeutic approaches, emphasizing the identification of evidence-based strategies for personalized therapeutic assignment. Empirical evidence increasingly supports the necessity of tailored treatment planning grounded in multidimensional client profiling, rather than relying on traditional models that depend on theoretical orientation or therapist selection. This systematic review aimed to consolidate the current state of knowledge regarding therapeutic assignment in psychotherapy by examining three primary research questions: (i) What methods and assessment tools are utilized to align clients with psychotherapy? (ii) How are client profiles integrated into decision-making models for selecting appropriate treatment options? (iii) What client variables are considered in psychotherapy assignments? In February 2025, a thorough search of the literature was done across several databases, with Scopus being the main one. PsycINFO, PubMed, and Google Scholar were also searched. The search strategy used was systematic and combined terms related to personalized psychotherapy, therapy matching, systematic treatment selection, client characteristics, and treatment decision-making. The search included publications from January 2010 to June 2025, including foundational theoretical works. After reviewing 493 initially identified articles and applying rigorous inclusion and exclusion criteria, 47 eligible studies were included in the qualitative synthesis. The findings highlight essential variables for therapeutic matching, including coping style, motivation, attachment style, and cultural background, while identifying key assessment tools such as the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI), Systematic Treatment Selection Clinician Rating Form (STS-CRF), and different personality and symptom measures. Decision-making models like systematic treatment selection, prescriptive psychotherapy, and feedback-informed approaches provide structured frameworks for therapeutic assignment, with Integrative and modular approaches demonstrating improved adaptability to individualized treatment needs. However, most models stem from Western-centric clinical research, potentially restricting their applicability in culturally and systemically diverse contexts, and the reviewed studies demonstrate limitations in generalizability, as most findings stemmed from disorder-specific applications and empirically validated treatments. The identified limitations highlight the need for an increased emphasis on sociocultural and contextual factors in therapeutic matching research and broader transdiagnostic personalization frameworks that focus on common psychological processes and mechanisms across different diagnostic categories rather than disorder-specific interventions.

Figures