EMDR Forum Archive, 1999
Re: Research on EMDR
Brian G. · 2/12/00 at 2:32 pm ET
Once again I appreciate your skepticism. You are asking me to justify and clarify my statements and this is what is necessary. However, have you thought about asking these same probing questions to the authors of some of the other posts? Anyway, you can read the article abstract through medline. Copy and paste the following link: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov:80/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=10225508&dopt=Abstract 1) EMDR therapists are indeed making money marketing a "revolutionary" and "unique" treatment which is simply not the case. Again, EMDR has been shown to be no better than the multitude of CBT non-proprietary therapies because EMDR works mostly by non-specific treatment effects and classic imaginal exposure. "Bilateral stimulation" which I'll remind you doesn't have support in the first place, is unnecessary for EMDR to work. It sounds scientific but isn't. 2) Dr. Shapiro originally claimed a 100% success rate for treating traumatic memories in a sigle treatment (1989, Journal of Traumatic Stress). She also recommends only taking authorized EMDR courses offered by her or those she designates and makes trainees sign a consent form which tells them not to teach others the technique. Other credible CBT therapies do not do this. Her success rate has been changed when evidence didn't support this. 3) Even though it is astonishing, we are all susceptable to thinking that something works even though the evidence doesn't support this. EMDR therapiest engage in what Janis calls "groupthink" and they seek confirmatiory evidence and ignore disconfirmation. (Research groupthink and the implications follow) Venues such as this, where typically one side of the information is presented, is a breeding ground for such problems. (Please refer to my earlier post on Science and Progress) 4) Again, EMDR works based on classic techniques so it is no wonder that therapists find it effective. Studies either show it is not better than CBT or that CBT is better. Component analyses dismantle the important parts of a therapy and these studies do not support the efficacy of bilateral stimulation. 5) When compared with traditional psychoanalyitic therapies ("year and years of talk therapy") EMDR is better because it is really CBT which itself is a time limited and relatively quick treatment (via exposure). EMDR does not necessarily work faster than other exposure techniques. This is a myth. Show me examples of this that aren't anecdotes. I don't believe that anyone on this list has provided as much evidence as I have. Why not have them start to back up their "beliefs" before you buy into them a priori. Thanks again, Brian
Replies:
|
| Behavior OnLine Home Page | Disclaimer |
Copyright © 1996-2004 Behavior OnLine, Inc. All rights reserved.
