... ↑
metanymous в посте Metapractice (оригинал в ЖЖ)
--FS: The EMDR HAP website: www.emdrhap.org/content/what-is-emdr/research-findings/
--BOH: Because I’ve known you for years and followed your work, it’s surprising to me that people have dismissed your work and attacked not only the work but sometimes you. Let’s talk about some of those dismissals and how you responded and overcame them.
--FS: The problems started early on because they were doing research that used EMD or EMDR procedures with and without the eye movement. However, they often did it badly. Those earlier studies were evaluated in 2000 by the task force of the International Society for Traumatic Stress Studies, and were deemed inadequate because they used inappropriate populations and not enough treatment, such as multiple traumatized combat veterans, and they only gave them two sessions. Instead of using the 35 clients in each condition that was supposed to be done, they’d use only seven or eight. The researchers weren’t doing it with appropriate fidelity checks. There was a ream of stuff going on, because back then, there was no gold standard to define how you’re supposed to do research.
For instance, when an intern who had never done therapy did a study with multiple traumatized combat veterans, the supervisor told him he wasn’t doing EMDR correctly, but it got published in the Journal of Behavior Therapy with negative results. So I asked a researcher I knew in the VA, “How is it possible that something gets published with a negative fidelity check?” He said, “Oh, well, we never use them.” That taught me that all the previous decades of psychological research really weren’t telling us anything, because no one had checked to make sure that the researcher had done the therapy the way it’s supposed to be done in clinical practice.