Re:Devilly & Spence, logical analyses and other stuff

"Now, consider a different kind of reasoning, called modus tollens by logicians. It follows the form:

P1. If theory T is correct, then I should be able to make observation O.
P2. I observe not-O.
C. Therefore, theory T is wrong.

This form of reasoning is formally valid, such that if the two propositions are true then the conclusion MUST be true."

-----------------------

The above is not necessarily valid. It also depends on the operational definitions and the validity/reliability of the observation as well as the credibility of the observer. For example, the observer may not use the appropriate assessment or make a valid observation of the event (phenomenon) in the context of interest.

It is usually best to circumscribe our philosophy of science and epistemology less we loose the focus of our interest, i.e., what are EMDR's unique elements and what are their effectiveness for treating specific problems and/or populations?

In practical terms, competent clinicians are also trained scientists and they constantly employ methods to increase their objectivity regarding their treatments. The process can be as simple as honest reflection, discussions, consultation, and supervision.

The research discussion is enlightening and educational, though the studies do not seem to examine the relevant core factors and specificity that many clinicians utilize in their sessions. For example, “eye-movement” by itself without an understanding of patients’ histories; the timing, duration, and frequency of the technique; and relationship variables, is not testing the optimal application of "bilateral stimulation."

It seems that some competent clinicians are straining to validate through (procrustean) studies that which they have observed as individuals. Though the challenges to “prove it” are appropriate, some may be more comfortable understanding the difficulty in methodologically re-creating clinical experiences with academic studies.

An example, many years ago the late Fritz Perls was observed conducting Gestalt Psychotherapy that appeared to many clinicians and patients to achieve extraordinary results. Some researchers attempted to demonstrate “Gestalt Therapy’s” effectiveness; they failed to understand Perls was an M.D. and traditionally trained psychiatrist with decades of clinical experience on several continents. He and his students personally trained others that also appeared to achieve similar results. This doesn’t equate to providing some graduate students with summary principles and a few sessions on learning the techniques.

It seems that some theoretical hypotheses and a few individuals’ exaggerated claims have caused some escalated criticism of EMDR, though psychotherapy as well as new and unique components need to be thoroughly scrutinized and validated. The somewhat “magical” aura surrounding EMDR needs demystifying by researchers, critics, and clinicians. People that want to validate EMDR need to comprehend that applications of the approach by well-trained and experienced clinicians is an inherent requirement that interacts with the techniques.

It is difficult to imagine trusting any treatment “approach or technique” to provide compassionate and effective assistance for people with, for example, severe trauma histories. The methods cannot be applied or researched as though their effectiveness is independent of psychotherapists, settings, and patients.

Replies:

There are no replies to this message.

| Behavior OnLine Home Page | Disclaimer |

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