Re:Point/Counterpoint Article Posted Online

Hi Shawn,

You've made a good point about how dismantling studies and horse-race (treatment comparison) studies answer different questions and can be pursued simultaneously. I guess I was just responding to the argument that "what is new [in EMDR] is not effective and what is effective is not new." In which case, I would be correct, why bother with component analysis unless EMDR's effect really is different? But you are correct, even if EMDR is not superior to other treatments, it may still have active ingredients worth understanding.

Meanwhile, it is important not to confuse the issues. It is possible that EMDR will be proven a more effective and/or efficient treatment, but with no effect documented for eye movements. Remember, until the component analysis studies are done, we don't really know what the active ingredients are. Regardless of what some theorists have propounded. That is why, meanwhile, treatment fidelity is so important. And that's why it's incorrect to believe that you can criticize EMDR by saying that eye movements have no effect (which is a premature conclusion anyway).

As for the fidelity issue, in your paper which has recently been cited, you did cite arguments on both sides, in lieu of data. So I responded by pointing to the data, in the Maxfield & Hyer study. That's all.

I also agree that it is difficult to really discuss the horse-race studies that haven't been published yet. In addition to the ones you mentioned, there is also the McFarlane study and the Jaberghaderi et al child study. In the latter case, however, preprints are readily available by request from my web site (http://www.childtrauma.com). Fortunately there are now several controlled comparison studies that have been published. So we can at least look at those.

Replies:

There are no replies to this message.

| Behavior OnLine Home Page | Disclaimer |

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