You said that Devilly misrepresented the data from his study. This comment is fine by me. I was just giving you the opportunity to contact the source of the supposed discrepancy to give him a chance to respond to your allegations. If you were serious about the issue you would seek his clarification. I gave you the email address. Invite him to discuss it with you. How can you expect or want me to comment on something you say that he said. You said that science is two-sided conversation. Get his side of the conversation then. So now you understand my perspective of the fidelity issue a little more clearly. I'm glad I could define my position more clearly. However, I read your previous post further and find another misinterpretation going on. I'm glad you stated it clearly because it has been something that comes up a lot and I had been meaning to comment on it. A little clarification: Cognitive-behavioral therapy is a diverse treatment approach that combines a number of different techniques. CBT is the category name for many different treatments. There are lots of variations of CBT. No one has found the only "correct" formula and many forms seem to work equally well. These are simply the variations of the CBT treatments that clinicians try to tweek and play with in order to gain more efficacy, effectiveness, and efficiency in different populations. It is not CBT(trademark)! Therefore, your assertion that CBT can't be pinned down is a misunderstanding of the concepts. CBT is a category and EMDR is a specific treatment with CBT components (and now Francine claims other therapies as well) with eye movements that do nothing to increase efficacy. PS If you are afraid to defend your criticisms of Devilly to his face, so to speak, then maybe I should contact him to see if he's interested in discussing it with you? Brian
Replies:
![]() |
| Behavior OnLine Home Page | Disclaimer |
Copyright © 1996-2004 Behavior OnLine, Inc. All rights reserved.