EMDR FORUM ARCHIVE, 2000
Re:More conclusions from the new EMDR meta-analysis
Tim · 06/14/01 at 10:10 PM ET
Sandra wrote: If I disagree with you Sandra, be assured that I will voice my opinion. If you can't take the criticism and wish to abuse you power as a moderator and censor posts, that is your choice and not really my concern. UHF wrote: "If I remember IMO, If you want an example of the "garbage in garbage out" that Meehl was taking about you should re-read the Van Etten & Taylor meta-analysis (published in a relatively obscure journal that does not even appear in PsychLit) that selectively used studies in the analyses that supported EMDR and ignored others. The new meta-analysis did not selectively include studies. "With regard to publications critical of EMDR what I find consistnetly surprising that studies actually do get published that Perhaps you should review information on meta-analyses. The lack of inclusion of studies with null findings (i.e., the file-drawer problem) is the major criticism against meta-analysis, because it gives an unrealistically rosey picture of the literature by failing to include all the research. The point you make actually supports the validity of the current meta-analysis because it includes all the quality research conducted. "Devilly's data, among others are ones that are questionable,as by his own report the subjects did not believe EMDR to We have already reviewed the merits of the Devilly and Spence study at length before on this board. I will simply ask a few questions though based on your current statements: So you are saying that EMDR only works when clients believe in it (i.e., by a placebo effect)? Or perhaps you are saying that this provides evidence that clients often find EMDR treatment silly and prefer exposure? To Ricky: Again, instead of repeating a discussion of the Devilly and Spence study I would refer interested readers to previous posts on the matter that clarified many of these points. Regarding the "in press" articles that you cite, it would seem prudent for us wait until they can be fully examined before we make firm conclusions about their merits and implications.
"Writer, you are welcome to post here and discuss the research. However, it is not for you to give direction on how or
when the moderator of this forum says or does her work. "
correctly, that was once referred to by Paul Meehl as something along the lines of "garbage in, garbage out"."
set out to support the null hypothesis, usually considered a scientific impossibility and not considered acceptable for
publication in most scientific venues. "
be a viable treatment, thus raising issues about a nocebo effect."
Replies:
| Behavior OnLine Home Page | Disclaimer |
Copyright © 1996-2004 Behavior OnLine, Inc. All rights reserved.
