In response to Shawn

Whoops! Wishful thinking maybe. McGoldrick is actually the second author. The citation:

Power, K. G., McGoldrick, T., Brown, K., Buchanan, R., Sharp, D., Swanson, V., & Karatzias, A. (2002). A controlled comparison of eye movement desensitisation and reprocessing versus exposure plus cognitive restructuring, versus waiting list in the treatment of posttraumatic stress disorder. Journal of Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, 9, 299-318.

As for the Ironson et al study, it found that the level of distress both during and between sessions was lower for EMDR; this study also found a lower dropout rate in the EMDR group. So although the clinical outcomes were comparable, these findings did favor EMDR in terms of acceptability to participants. I don't think that this one study is anything to get all excited about, it's just one more piece of the puzzle.

Incidentally, it is not accurate to say that they "altered" EMDR by using additional interventions in their treatment. EMDR was never intended as a stand-alone magic pill to replace psychotherapy. Rather, it's supposed to be integrated into an overall treatment approach, including various preparatory activities. However, it is accurate to point out that adding a procedure that's also used in the competing treatment makes the competing treatments more similar. Hopefully this improves the control and makes the important difference the only thing that is measured.

The next study I hope to conduct will take this strategy to an extreme. I would like to use the Deblinger CBT approach with traumatized kids, for both the CBT group and the EMDR group. This approach involves working with parents, helping kids to manage their symptoms, etc. Then when it comes to the exposure component, one group will do it the CBT way, the other group will do EMDR. In this study, the only difference will be for the "trauma resolution" method. As for the rest, as far as I'm concerned, EMDR therapists should be using all that stuff anyway.

Replies:

Not quite so fast, by Cahill, 04/23/03 That's my point too, by Ricky Greenwald, 04/23/03 Re:Here's the point, by Landry, 04/23/03 Re:Here's the point, by Sandra Paulsen Inobe PhD, 04/24/03 Re:Here's the point, by Realist, 04/24/03 Different methodological positions, by Cahill, 04/24/03 Re:Different methodological positions, by Realist, 04/24/03 Re:Different methodological positions, by Sandra Paulsen Inobe PhD, 04/25/03 Re:Here's the point, by Carol Ann Rowland, MSW, RSW, 04/24/03 Re:Here's the point, by Ricky Greenwald, 04/25/03 researcher allegiance, by Ricky Greenwald, 04/25/03 Re:Here's the point, by Landry, 04/26/03 Re:Here's the point, by Ricky Greenwald, 04/28/03 Something unique happening in EMDR?, by Cahill, 05/01/03 Re:Something unique , by Fred H., 05/09/03 Let's leave innuendo out of the discussion, by Cahill, 04/26/03 Re:Let's leave innuendo out of the discussion, by Ricky Greenwald, 04/28/03 Devilly & Spence, logical analyses and other stuff, by Cahill, 05/01/03 Re:Devilly & Spence, logical analyses and other stuff, by Realist, 05/02/03 What is EMDR?, by Ricky Greenwald, 04/23/03 Re:What is EMDR?, by Cahill, 05/01/03

| Behavior OnLine Home Page | Disclaimer |

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