Evidence. [Was: Re:EMDR v EXPOSURE]

Cahill wrote in part: "There is no credible evidence that EMDR helps a broader range of people than other forms of CBT and there is no credible evidence that EMDR helps people who fail to benefit from CBT."

Consider this...

Chemtob, C.M., Nakashima,J. Hamada R.S. & Carlson, J.G. (2002). Brief-treatment for elementary school children with disaster-related posttraumatic stress disorder: A field study. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 58,99-112.

In this study, following a disastrous hurricane, children on the entire island of Kauai were screened for post-traumatic stress symptoms. The most highly distressed were given a 4-session structured group CBT intervention that was generally effective; most participants no longer suffered clinical levels of distress following the treatment. A wait-list control was used, which showed that the participants' positive response was due to the treatment as opposed to maturation (passage of time).

Some months later, non-responders were given EMDR, again using a wait-list control group. Participants in the EMDR phase of the study averaged a 58% reduction in symptoms on the primary measure of post-traumatic stress symptoms.

So here is some evidence that some individuals who did not respond to a generally effective course of CBT later had a positive response to EMDR. Again, this is just one study, but it's a start. Would be interesting to try it both ways, wouldn't it? Maybe EMDR non-responders would benefit from CBT.

Replies:

Not Convincing Evidence. [Was: Re:EMDR v EXPOSURE], by Cahill, 04/23/03 Not Convincing Evidence. [Was: Re:EMDR v EXPOSURE], by Ricky Greenwald, 04/23/03

| Behavior OnLine Home Page | Disclaimer |

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