Re: Reviewing the totality of the evidence against EMDR's claims

I know that some EMDR proponents would want to retreat into nihilism regarding the research and I can see shy: They do not want to see that the literature, by and large, doesn't support their vivid and personal experiences of success with EMDR. If I have to explain why testimony does not equal empirical support there is no hope with arguing this issue.

I have already pointed out that the APA Division 12 Task Force on empirically supported treatment only requires a treatment demonstrate effectiveness over strict waitlist controls in 2 studies to be considered probably efficacious. First, almost any treatment compared with no treatment will yield benefits because of nonspecific factors. I have already highlighted why this does not support EMDR as a novel treatment because it is so similar to CBT treatments and several studies have concluded that, in comparisons, imaginal exposure appears to be the most important component. Therefore, of course it would be considered probably efficacious based on these criteria.

I will not even go into my opinion of the problems with the International Society for Traumatic Stress.

Just some more thoughts,

Brian

Replies:

Re: Reviewing the totality of the evidence against EMDR's claims, by Robert P. O'Brien, Ph.D., 2/19/00 Two reasons that these claims are spurious, by James Mason, Ph.D., 2/21/00 Re: Two reasons that these claims are spurious, by Robert P. O'Brien, PH.D., 2/21/00 Re: Two reasons that these claims are spurious, by James Mason, Ph.D., 2/23/00 Still confused, by Robert P. O'Brien, Ph.D., 2/24/00 Re: Still confused, by , 5/10/00

| Behavior OnLine Home Page | Disclaimer |

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