Psychotherapy integration grew out of increasing dissatisfaction with the continuous creation of new schools of therapy, the demands for accountability by payers, and the confusion of the general public about what psychotherapy is (Prochaska and Norcross 2007). The movement promised several advantages: clarity through recognition of common factors and a common language for the many overlapping concepts and strategies; improved outcomes via selection of the most effective concepts and strategies; and a framework within which new ideas could continue to evolve while simultaneously being tempered by continuing contact with other evolving ideas and the core processes that defined psychotherapy. By attempting to conceptualize psychotherapy as a whole, as an entity itself, the integration movement fostered pragmatic findings that did not fit neatly within specific, school-based theoretical orientations. These findings included the predominance of patient variables in determining outcome, the significant role of personal characteristics of the therapist, the key role of the therapeutic alliance, and the value of focusing on outcome rather than theory and technique.