EMDR FORUM ARCHIVE, 2000
More conclusions from the new EMDR meta-analysis
Tim Beckinstaff, M.S. · 06/12/01 at 9:30 PM ET
Below are some summary conclusions from Davidson and Parker (2001) in their empirical review of all the outcome studies conducted on EMDR to date. "Is EMDR better than other exposure-based treatments? The answer seems to be no." "Is eye movement--or indeed, any alternating movement--a necessary component of EMDR? The near-zero effect sizes indicate that eye movement is unnecessary...The effect sizes for the outcome measures are small, and we have no evidence that eye movements or other alternating stimuli are necessary." "Do therapists trained by the EMDR Institute produce different results? The evidence gathered does not show that including only therapists trained by the EMDR Institute changed the conclusions about the effect of EMDR." "Is EMDR more or less effective with some populations than with others? Again there was no solid evidence that this was the case." "EMDR is no longer described as a single-session therapy, and the rapidity of EMDR treatment relative to other exposure therapies is not clear from the literature at this time." (p. 313) Davidson, P. R., & Parker, K. C. H. (2001). Eye movement desensitization and reprocessing (EMDR): A meta-analysis. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 69(2), 305-316.
Replies:
| Behavior OnLine Home Page | Disclaimer |
Copyright © 1996-2004 Behavior OnLine, Inc. All rights reserved.
