Re:Scientific Jargon vs. reality

Hi Shawn and others,

My apologies for this slow response that will again be light on data. My move is going way too slowly. Sandra has already referred to Louise Maxfield's earlier post, elsewhere Maxfield has pointed out that even in the meta-analysis in question, when only the studies using clinical populations are considered, there are significant effects for eye movements. When non-clinical populations are added, the effects disappear. I don't know what that means. Fortunately, there are several more studies in the pipeline, hopefully things will become more clear.

Meanwhile, we appear to be in agreement on many points. While as a clinician I may believe that eye movements are essential to EMDR and add effect, as a scientist all I can say is that it's still an open question. We are in agreement on many of the methodological issues.

Where we may diverge is on the implications on the current status of this research. Many take conclusions such as the one drawn by the authors of this meta-analysis to state that "What's new [in EMDR] isn't effective, and what's effective isn't new." While this is a very clever slogan, it's a premature conclusion, for at least two reasons:

1) Until we have done enough good controlled comparison studies to determine whether the effects of EMDR and (for example) Prolonged Exposure are equal, we cannot be sure that they are. Some studies show greater effect and efficiency for EMDR, others do not - so we don't know yet. What will happen to that nice slogan if it turns out that EMDR is somehow better?

2) The fate of EMDR rests on controlled comparison treatment outcome studies, not on studies re the possible role of eye movements. What if EMDR turns out to be somehow better while eye movements turn out to be fluff? Then we'll still have to figure out what the active ingredients are. Although many components of EMDR are borrowed, they are packaged/sequenced in a somewhat unique manner, and the central component (exposure) is conducted contrary to established principles. Until we can be sure, EMDR should not be equated to Prolonged Exposure plus eye movements.

Finally, the reason I mentioned my activity in teaching Exposure more frequently than EMDR is that (somewhere up there, not sure where anymore) there was an implication that bias in favor of EMDR was behind the position that the death of eye movements as an active ingredient is premature. I would prefer that the focus stay on the data, this was one attempt to shift the focus in that direction. Apparently it backfired. Oh well!

Replies:

Request for Ricky, by Cahill, 01/19/03 Re:Request for Ricky, by Ricky Greenwald, 01/20/03 Re:Request for Ricky, by Cahill, 01/20/03 Re:Request for Ricky, by Cahill, 01/20/03 Re:Scientific Jargon vs. reality, by Barbara, 01/20/03

| Behavior OnLine Home Page | Disclaimer |

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