EMDR FORUM ARCHIVE, 2000
Re:Bilateral stimulation
G.P. · 08/01/00 at 6:54 PM ET
We seem to have a definite problem. In your last post you said "I was only saying that "bilateral" stimulation seems unnecessary and was speculating about general sensory stimulation." and "I specifically said that the research on "bilateral" stimulation is equivocal at this time" " What you actually said in the previous post was: "I think it's pretty clear for those who practice EMDR and other power therapies that "bilateral" stimulation is completely unnecessary (both through clinical experience and research). As Dr. Bergmann and others can easily observe, widely alternating methods seem to produce the same effects. This is examplified in the fact that Dr. Shapiro called the treatment Eye Movement Desensitization until she found out that EMs were completely unnecessary. Then, it was claimed that "bilateral" stimulation was the key, which is again being proven wrong. " So I'm afraid you may have intended to be judicious in your comments, but you were not. I'm afraid the global nature of statements such as "completely unnecessary" and "proven wrong" are responsible for some of the replies you've received. The same with making statements regarding demand characteristics and SUD. Any therapist interest could be a demand characteristic--and taking a SUD once at the beginning, and then at the end to check on progress just doesn't seem to fall into any special "demand" category. Stating that active mechanisms are the same because of similar outcomes (and I again maintain even this is inaccurate) is tantamount to stating that cognitive therapy and exposure therapy work by the same mechanisms because they have been consistently found to have the same effects (e.g., Foa et al., 1991, 1999; Marks et al., 1999; Tarrier et al., 1998). I'm sorry but it simply begins to feel very old to travel into the same territory again and again. This becomes the case when global negations are made. Further, if the accurate description of the Devilly study, which is the only one to show negative results out of 8 published civilian studies, strikes you as "picking and choosing" then we have a very different view of science. I freely grant you that Shapiro's study should be discounted for the same reasons as Devilly's. That leaves 6 other EMDR studies by independent researchers with very different results from Devilly's. These include independent researchers, such as Rothbaum, who is an exposure advocate and co-author of Foa. So, please, lets not recycle this again. If you will read Shapiro's text (Chapter 12) as I previously suggested you will find that the sensory stimulation is discussed in an open handed manner citing the need for more research to determine the optimal type to use. I again suggest you read Shapiro's overview of the component analyses. I also suggest you read Lipke (2000) for a theoretical exploration. The reference you requested is: Van Etten, M.L. & Taylor, S. (1998) Comparative efficacy of treatments for posttraumatic stress disorder: A meta-analysis. Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy, 5, 126-144. And FYI: Figley has stated publicly that he dislikes the term "power therapy" and regrets that it was ever used. It has only been picked up, as I noted previously, by marketeers and detractors. EMDR is an integrated complex psychotherapy approach. It is a great deal more than tapping or eye movements.
Replies:
|
| Behavior OnLine Home Page | Disclaimer |
Copyright © 1996-2004 Behavior OnLine, Inc. All rights reserved.
