EMDR FORUM ARCHIVE, 2000
Re:More conclusions from the new EMDR meta-analysis
Tim Beckinstaff · 06/14/01 at 10:05 ET
Sandra, First, as a supposed expert on EMDR perhaps you sould actually read the research article before you draw your conclusions. It seems like your mind is already made up and that no amount of evidence can dissuade you from your position but you should at least be properly informed if you are going to criticize. Second, your *claim* that clients find EMDR more tolerable than exposure is your *opinion* and is not based any substantial evidence. To do an actual test of this hypothesis, you would have to, within a *single study*, compare the drop out rates of EMDR and CB exposure therapy. This was done, and Devilly and Spence (1999) found that EMDR had a substantial drop out rate. Third, I have heard numerous clients say that they have dropped out of EMDR because it makes them feel silly and when it didn't work they felt foolish for getting involved with it in the first place. I sometimes have to repair the damage caused by EMDR. You see, my previous *opinion* is based on some client reports like your previous statements were. Which one is "correct"? I would hope that we can focus on the empirical evidence to answer that question so please in the future separate your personal opinions from the empirical evidence. Also there was an article posted here recently from an author whose review of the literature demonstrated that there is a strong possibility that EMDR is incomplete exposure and that the treatment gains do not last as long when compared to exposure. This is a hypothesis that should definately be given more direct investigation because it has important implications. Devilly, G. J. (2001). The influence of distraction during exposure and research allegiance during outcome trials. the "This article presented a brief review of a growing trend for EMDR-related samples to show dissipation in treatment
Behavior Therapist, 24(1), 18-21.
gains over time. This is a direct comparison to exposure-based treatments to maintain gains over time or to continue to
improve the functioning of those treated...The explanation offered in this article was based predominantly on the effects of
distraction on exposure and, specifically, its interfering effects on habituation...Overall, it was noted that participant
demand effects, researcher allegiance, and the biasing effects of experimenter expectation may be having effects on the
results where face-to-face interviews were included as part of follow-up" (p. 20).
Replies:
| Behavior OnLine Home Page | Disclaimer |
Copyright © 1996-2004 Behavior OnLine, Inc. All rights reserved.
