EMDR FORUM ARCHIVE, 2000
Re: Initial response
Sandra Paulsen Inobe, PhD · 10/12/02 at 9:09 PM ET
Several things off the top of my head. When you say ineffective again, you are ignoring the body of literature that says effective, as concluded by, for example, the International Society for Traumatic Stress Studies and Americal Psychological Association Division 12, both of which had committees reviewing the body of research to date. Next, there is no excuse for somebody basing their protocol on the 1989 article, which was very early, instead of the more substantial and fully elaborated protocol that was subsequently put forward and upon which the call for research has been based. Shapiro's book is now in it's second edition with lots of discussion about what the parameters of research should be and what's been wrong with prior designs. So why on earth would someone use the 89 article? It sounds like someone who has not been trained or hasn't read the recent work, would be my guess. I'd like to know the answer to these questions. In short, the 89 article is NOT a sufficient basis for treatment or resaerch. Next, 45 undergraduates? doesn't sound like a clinical population. I'd be interested in knowing if there was measurement of bona fide clinical symptoms. That is, would these people have sought clinical treatment, or was this the usual undergraduate study which is NOT a clinical population? If not a clinical population, I wouldn't expect much movement on much of anything to be measurable. Clinical research based on non-clinical populations has to be taken with a grain of salt. Next, 1 treatment session? 45 minutes or 90? You have to have a sufficient dosage of treatment of EMDR, because the protocol goes until the SUD is 0 (in a usual PTSD case, for example). One doesn't base the treatment on a single unit of time like a 45 minute session. And have you read the dual attention discussion? For years, no one has said it is only eye movements that does the trick. To do research on only the eye movements angle is to be about one decade behind in design. Those are my initial questions. Thanks for posting the finding here so it can be discussed.
Replies:
| Behavior OnLine Home Page | Disclaimer |
Copyright © 1996-2004 Behavior OnLine, Inc. All rights reserved.
