EMDR Forum Archive, 1999
Re: Taking a closer look at the findings of Devilly and Spence 1999
SR · 3/30/00 at 8:23 am ET
I presented a conclusion which was not supported by the data. I made no comment about Devilly's integrity and engaged in no speculation about him personally at all. I was simply asking for acknowledgement of an error from the 'other side'. And I thought that's how science was supposed to work, a two-sided critique from which everyone can benefit. Thank you for clarifying your position on the fidelity issue. I would agree that there is a hazard in dismissing negative results on the basis of a changing training standard. I don't think I've ever done that myself. I think it is important for readers to know enough about the procedure used in a study to draw correct conclusions about the limits of its generalizeability, which is why I favor lengthy procedure section in research articles. However, the next part of your statement, that Shapiro changed her training in response to negative results, would require some support. Which results are you referring to, when were they reported, and when did the changes in the training occur? As for introducing new elements into the treatment. I think that's happening in CBT as well. Foa has begun to investigate flooding + cognitive restructuring, Devilly's procedure was made of a bunch of elements which had not been packaged together before, and in a way, it's hard to draw conclusions about other CBTs from his study. So if the concern is that EMDR can morph indefinitely and never be pinned down long enough for its limits to be tested, I accept the legitimacy of that concern and go on to say that the same thing could be said of CBT. You could help me with this by answering the question I posed a long time ago- what elements can be identified as 'not CBT'?
Replies:
|
| Behavior OnLine Home Page | Disclaimer |
Copyright © 1996-2004 Behavior OnLine, Inc. All rights reserved.
