EMDR FORUM ARCHIVE, 2000
Re:Scientific Jargon vs. reality
Ricky Greenwald · 12/28/02 at 2:19 PM ET
Citing an opinion published in a high-status journal does not make the opinion correct. This meta-analysis is controversial for a number of reasons, this opinion being one of them. If you look at the actual studies pertaining to the possible role of eye movements, you would almost certainly come to a different conclusion than the authors of this meta-analysis. At this point, it appears likely - but still far from certain - that eye movements do contribute to EMDR's treatment effect, although they may contribute only a fraction of the total treatment effect. Also, to clarify the above discussion re whether EMDR can be EMDR even without eye movements... EMDR is a structured sequence of activities incorporating many interventions that are already known to be effective components of trauma treatment. This is one of the primary remaining controversies about EMDR. Is it different? or just the same old stuff, repackaged (eye movements added as a flashy but inert ingredient) and astutely marketed? I think it's fair to say, at this point, that based on the data, anyone who categorically asserts one view or the other is over-interpreting existing findings. There is at least some reason to support each position, but not enough to be sure yet. Of course, individuals (clinicians as well as clients) should be free to describe their own experiences, impressions, observations, and opinions. However, scientists are obliged to respect data and avoid premature conclusions.
Replies:
|
| Behavior OnLine Home Page | Disclaimer |
Copyright © 1996-2004 Behavior OnLine, Inc. All rights reserved.
