Over the past three decades, criteria for Empirically Supported Treatments (ESTs) have strengthened methodological rigor in psychotherapy research by prioritizing randomized controlled trials and systematic evidence synthesis. However, prevailing frameworks remain largely centered on efficacy under controlled conditions, offering limited operational guidance for integrating contextual factors that critically shape real-world effectiveness. We propose the Contextualized Empirically Supported Treatment Framework (C-EST), a normative and operational model that integrates certainty of evidence with structured appraisal of contextual domains essential for clinical decision-making, guideline development, and policy. Building on the Tolin criteria, GRADE, GRADE-CERQual, and the GRADE Evidence-to-Decision approach, C-EST embeds assessment of empirical certainty within five interconnected domains (1): empirical evidence (2), critical appraisal of the body of evidence, (3) functional and cultural impact, (4) contextual factors, including values, acceptability, feasibility, and equity, and (5) transparency and living evidence. Rather than relying on binary classifications (“supported” vs. “unsupported”), the framework enables nuanced judgments such as “supported with contextual concerns,” explicitly documenting boundaries of applicability. Using Cognitive Behavioral Therapy for depression and psychological interventions for postpartum depression as illustrative cases, we demonstrate how contextual appraisal refines, rather than weakens, established evidence classifications. By aligning internal validity with external, cultural, and equity relevance, C-EST transforms evidence evaluation from a static designation into a dynamic decision-support tool. Integrating contextual evidence is not an ethical add-on but a methodological imperative to ensure that psychological treatments are not only efficacious, but applicable, equitable, and responsive to diverse real-world mental health needs.