Check out this opinion piece (rebuttal) published in Psychology Today by Jonathan Shedler. It challenges the notion that randomized control trials (RCTs) are the “gold standard” to determine the best forms of treatment in the real world. While RCTs can answer certain questions, he argues they cannot answer the most important questions. As a result, the APA recommended treatments are all short-term treatments but will not be able to tell us whether those who undergo the treatment really get better and what options are available for those who drop-out of treatment (there is a significant drop-out rate with several of these recommended treatments).
For those interested in this controversy, I’d like to find out if you have (a) heard anyone challenging Shedler’s criticism and (b) what alternatives are offered by them. I’ve seen zero challenges to his piece to date.
Musings on Faith and Psychology 
Haven’t heard a rebuttal and to be honest, while it may just be the environment I’m in, I’ve heard a lot of voices echo this in the clinical counseling arena. There are a lot of problems with the current medical model understanding of client change and the influence of insurance companies on how people are diagnosed and treated is proving to be a real problem.