A response to Shapiro (part II)

Continued from the previous posting (a response to shapiro part I)

4) Renfrey and Spates 1998 seem to reach different conclusions which are not based on non-significant findings as your analysis of their study is.

J Behav Ther Exp Psychiatry 1994 Sep;25(3):231-9

Eye movement desensitization: a partial dismantling study.

Renfrey G, Spates CR

Twenty-three PTSD subjects were exposed to either: (1) standard eye movement desensitization
(EMD), (2) a variant of EMD in which eye movements were engendered through a light tracking
task, or (3) a variant of EMD in which fixed visual attention replaced eye movements. All three
interventions produced significant positive changes in all dependent measures and these changes
were maintained at follow-up. No significant differences between groups were observed. It was
concluded that the eye movements peculiar to EMD are not essential to treatment outcome. The
implications of the present findings and previous reports are discussed.

5) Your history for reinterpretation of negative findings and explaining away of disconfirming evidence regarding EMDR is well documented and commented upon recently. I am simply getting to witness it first hand on this discussion.

For example:

J Anxiety Disord 1999 Jan-Apr;13(1-2):35-67

Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing (EMDR) and the anxiety
disorders: clinical and research implications of an integrated psychotherapy
treatment.

Shapiro F

Unfortunately, some research has been
conducted that has been severely hampered by insufficient treatment fidelity and lack of clinical
validity. Consequently, this article will attempt to describe the procedures and protocols that are
believed to contribute to EMDR's clinical effects and are, therefore, suggested for the EMDR
treatment and research of the anxiety disorders. This is particularly relevant given the
misconceptions that have abounded due to the unfortunate naming of the procedure after the eye
movements, which have proved to be only one of many useful types of stimulation, and only one
of many components of this complex, integrated treatment.

Rosen's conclusion:

Anxiety Disord 1999 Jan-Apr;13(1-2):173-84

Treatment fidelity and research on Eye Movement Desensitization and
Reprocessing (EMDR).

Rosen GM

When controlled studies failed to support the
extraordinarily positive findings and claims made by Shapiro, proponents of EMDR raised the
issue of treatment fidelity and criticized researchers for being inadequately trained. This paper
considers the issues raised by EMDR proponents. It is concluded that treatment fidelity has been
used as a specious, distracting issue that permits the continued promotion of EMDR in the face of
negative empirical findings. Clinical psychologists are urged to remember the basic tenets of
science when evaluating extraordinary claims made for novel techniques.

6) You site an unpublished meta-analysis which of course is unable to be confirmed. We have plenty of published info to work from which I will stick to.

You say that I have presented "extraordinarily one-sided" arguments and that I am "spreading misinformation" that is "not permissible" on this list. Your attempt is to brand me a mean, solitary and misinformed individual in the minds of the others on this list which is unfortunate. However, you and your proponents have posted for over 2 years which seem a much more, using your words, "extraordinarily one-side" presentation of the information. My postings are meager in comparison. There is much critical info about EMDR, published in respected journals and found in study after study from numerous sources. You continue to selectively quote some studies that have methodological flaws which obscure issues. I find it interesting that you were careful not to refute most of the points from my original posting by obfuscating the issues here.

Your opinion throughout this listing then, should be updated to include this information.

I'll discuss your most recent "claims" (Shapiro, 1999) in a later posting. However, history has been unkind to the overstated claims of EMDR you have proclaimed in the past.

To those on this discussion, I apologize for the long posting (believe me there is a much more evidence I can site that contradicts Dr. Shapiro's conclusions). I think it is best for people to read some of the alternate opinions for themselves and not simply have to rely on what Dr. Shapiro or I say.

As you can read yourself, you have not been getting a balanced presentation of the evidence. I encourage professionals to find Dr. Shapiro's and my references and come to your own conclusions. I originally was excited about EMDR until I started researching the phenomenon. However, I feel glad that I took the time to seek a less biased evaluation of EMDR. Now I simply want to help fellow professionals see the forest through the trees.

Thanks,

Brian

Replies:

Re: A response to Shapiro (part II), by Shapiro, 2/15/00 Saddened by the recent threats and personal attacks, by Brian G., 2/15/00 Dear Brian, Re: Saddened by the recent threats and personal attacks , by , 2/16/00 Re: Saddened by the recent threats and personal attacks, by Shapiro, 2/16/00 Shapiro Changes from Threats to Ultimatums, by Brian G., 2/17/00 Re: Shapiro Changes from Threats to Ultimatums, by Shapiro, 2/17/00 Re: Shapiro Changes from Threats to Ultimatums, by Brian G., 2/17/00 Let's get back to the data, by SR, 2/17/00 answering shapiro's challenge, by Brian G., 2/16/00 Re: answering shapiro's challenge, by Shapiro, 2/16/00 Everything but the kitchen sink . . ., by Brian G., 2/17/00 Re: Everything but the kitchen sink . . ., by , 2/18/00 Re: Everything but the kitchen sink . . ., by Brian, 2/18/00 A lot of what's going on, by Michael Galvin, PhD, 2/16/00 Re: A lot of what's going on, by James Mason, Ph.D., 2/21/00 Re: A lot of what's going on, by , 2/22/00

| Behavior OnLine Home Page | Disclaimer |

Copyright © 1996-2004 Behavior OnLine, Inc. All rights reserved.