First, Dr. Paulsen-Inobe, you offered *no* data to support your claims, and offered only your opinion, and that of Francine. I'm not asking here for arguments from authority, I'm asking for evidence that EMDR is more efficacious than EMD. I know of none in peer-reviewed journals, so please provide it if you have it. Second, I will only add that I would like you to review the outcome literature in EMDR, and I want you to disregard all the studies that do not meet the criteria that Francine sets. You will be left with nothing. Especially considering that you do not hold these criteria to studies that *support* EMDR, only those that refute it. Perhaps you are unaware of the complexity and reality of conducting outcome research. Francine's talk about standards in EMDR research is nothing new, and can be found in any basic research text (and as you note were better articulated by Foa and Meadows anyway). It is important that as many "gold standards" are incorporated in any study, but no study will be perfect and that is why we look to a convergence of evidence. Simply read Davison and Parker's recent meta-analysis of EMDR to see what picture this paints of EMDR. The fact is that bilateral stimulation is unlikely, based on a number of studies of various qualities, to be the mechanism of action, and without it, EMDR is left with nothing new. This new study improves on sample size concerns and disconfirms EMDR's specific efficacy--again. BTW, the study used EMD because it was conducted over a decade ago. It still serves a purpose in providing another piece of the research puzzle and that is why it was published in a respectable journal.
Replies:
|
| Behavior OnLine Home Page | Disclaimer |
Copyright © 1996-2004 Behavior OnLine, Inc. All rights reserved.