In recent years there has been a growing interest regarding the integration of evidence-based practice into social work curricula and practice (Howard, McMillen, & Pollio, 2003; Thyer, 2004). However, there has also been a growing concern about the proliferation of novel interventions that lack empirical support and yet make claims of efficacy in the absence of evidence (Thyer, 2007) as well as conventional social work interventions that lack empirical support and yet remain unquestioned (Gambrill, 2006). Although studies have been conducted that have examined the theoretical orientations and other practice patterns of clinical social workers, to date, with the exception of the pilot study (Pignotti & Thyer, 2009) that preceded this dissertation, no study has systematically examined the intervention choices of licensed clinical social workers (LCSWs) including the use of novel unsupported therapies. The present dissertation examined the reported usage of novel and conventional unsupported and empirically supported therapies by 400 LCSWs from 39 different states who responded to an Internet survey. The purpose of the study was to determine what interventions were reported currently being used by LCSWs, reasons for choosing interventions, and their attitudes towards evidence-based practice. Prior to data analysis, the list of the therapies reported being used by LCSWs was presented to a panel of expert reviewers and therapies were classified as empirically supported therapies (ESTs), novel unsupported therapies (NUTs) or conventional unsupported therapies (CUTs). The study hypotheses were that: 1) females would be more likely than males to use CUTs and NUTs; 2) respondents who report an affiliation with eastern/new age or nondenominational/spiritual religions would be more likely to use NUTs; 3) clinical experience would be more highly rated than empirical evidence as a reason for selecting a therapy; 4) LCSWs with a theoretical orientation of cognitive-behavioral would value evidence from research more highly than LCSWs of other orientations and 5) LCSWs who use NUTs and/or CUTs will score higher on the Divergence subscale of the Evidence-Based Practice Attitudes Scale (EBPAS; Aarons, 2004) than those who did not use such therapies. The results showed that although an overwhelming majority of the sample reported using ESTs (98%), three-quarters of participants also reported using at least one NUT and 86% used at least one CUT. The hypothesis that females were more likely to use NUTs and CUTs was supported and females also used a higher number of NUTs. The hypothesis that participants reporting eastern/new age and nondenominational/spiritual religious beliefs use a higher number of NUTs was also supported, although they were not more likely to use any NUT. It was found that participants, as hypothesized, valued clinical experience over research evidence and LCSWs with a theoretical orientation of cognitive-behavioral were found to value research evidence more highly than those of other theoretical orientations. The hypothesis that LCSWs who use NUTs and/or CUTs will score higher on the Divergence subscale of the EBPAS was not supported. This study offers preliminary evidence that the use of NUTs is widespread among LCSWs, although the limitation is noted that the present sample may not necessarily be representative of all LCSWs. It also appears that given the fact that actuarial judgment has been shown to be more accurate than clinical judgment (Dawes, Faust & Meehl, 1989) LCSWs may be under-valuing research evidence. It is also evident that the use of ESTs and NUTs are not necessarily mutually exclusive and although the EBPAS indicates that overall our sample had a positive attitude towards EBP, future research needs to examine a fuller definition of the term that includes their understanding of the term and specific practices.