More Research is Needed

The definitive research has not yet been conducted that will answer all the questions that needed to be answered. Component analysis and dismantling research needs to be done to determine what role bilateral stimulation plays in the process. Although most EMDR practitioners find that the bilateral stimulation/eye movements add an important component to treatment, that belief has not been unequivocally demonstrated with the appropriate studies. We should keep in mind that the problem of adequate study design is pervasive in psychological research, unfortunately.

As one prime example of how this problem is larger than just with EMDR, psychological research was reported to have demonstrated that systematic desensitization didn't need hierarchy or relaxation. Joseph Wolpe, however, (its originator to lay readers) firmly believed up until the end of his life that the component analyses had not been properly done -- example, he'd recommended hours of relaxation training but one study used 20 minutes, compromising treatment fidelity. And the population was subclinical college students, insufficient sample size, insufficient dosage (too few sessions)-- the problems EMDR research has. The research needs to be tighter across the field.

But as Sue Rogers has summarized (thanks Sue), here are reasons EMDR practitioners keep using eye movements: 1) Boudewyns et al, 1993, compared EMDR and a nonEM analog, and found significantly greater decreases in within-session SUD ratings with eye movements. 2) Lohr et al, 1996, compared EMDR and a nonEM analog, and found no change or a slight increase in SUD level with the analog, and a definite decrease with eye movements. More specifically, they did find decreased SUD for the analog for generalized memories, but no decrease in SUD to the original traumatic experience until they added eye movements. They also saw no change in heart rate, though subjective anxiety and behavioral avoidance in vivo both changed. 3) Montgomery & Aylon, 1994, found the same thing. 4) Cerone, 2000, reported a lower average SUD rating with eye movements. 5) Feske & Goldstein found differences between EMDR and non-EM analog on standardized measures at posttest, though the differences were lost by 3-month follow up. These studies are all too small in terms of subjects -- but they tend to suggest what EMDR therapists experience clinically and indeed viscerally -- that the eye movements makes processing more comfortable for the client and very possibly faster.

At this point I'll just mention the current bottom line, however, which is that as to EMDR's effectiveness:
1) it has been found to be an empirically valid treatment for civilian PTSD by the American Psychological Association's Division 12 Task Force on Psychological Interventions. It also received an A/B rating from those evaluating EMDR for the ISTSS (International Society for Traumatic Stress Studies) - (Chemtob, Tolin, van der Kolk, & Pitman, 2000).

More discussion about the particulars of studies may be found in the archives of this forum.

Sandra Paulsen Inobe, PhD
Walnut Creek California

Replies:

There are no replies to this message.

| Behavior OnLine Home Page | Disclaimer |

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