Group-based interventions are available for almost every conceivable problem a person might experience over the course of a lifetime. A myriad of therapeutic groups facilitated by trained mental health professionals exist alongside an even greater number of self-help and mutual support groups (Dies, 1992). The mushrooming choices in the group-helping field over the last few decades, compounded by a chaotic proliferation of theoretical orientations with often limited empirical support and sometimes harmful consequences, resulted in much controversy and uncertainty (Scheidlinger, 2004, p. 266). Such a bewildering state of affairs is precisely the situation where a scientist-practitioner approach is helpful in separating the wheat from the chaff. For example, the long-term group therapy models derived from traditional psychoanalysis (e.g., Kutash & Wolf, 1993; Rutan, 1993) are incongruous with current health care systems that emphasize efficient, time-limited service delivery. In contrast, short-term group interventions based on a more substantial empirical foundation and designed to achieve relatively rapid relief from specific symptoms are increasingly popular in this era of accountability and cost-effectiveness (Dies, 1992). The latter are highly goal-oriented and use interpersonal interaction in small, carefully planned groups to effect change in individuals specifically selected for the purpose of ameliorating a circumscribed set of problems (Scheidlinger, 1994).

The use of interpersonal interaction as a therapeutic tool in the here-and-now context of a group is an inherent advantage of group interventions.