Re:General comment and comment on Point #1

Agreed, she wouldn?t say such things today. However, the problem is that the various changes in treatment protocol (e.g., the evolution from EMD to EMDR, the increased emphasis on resource installation, the addition of the cognitive interweave, etc) and changes in training requirements (just read my article -> take two weekend long seminars) are based on the same level of observation as her earlier claims about 70-80% improvement in one 60-min session: clinical observation. Why should we put more faith in what she says now, compared to what she said then? The changes in EMD(R) should be the result of research, not staying one step ahead of the research. People should consider abandoning eye movements not because of Shapiro?s clinical observations, but because of research. You keep saying that EMDR has changed and therefore it is inappropriate to use the older methods and standards. But where is the data that support the (perhaps unstated) idea that EMDR as it is currently defined is any better than the original EMD?

Replies:

Re:General comment and comment on Point #1, by Sandra Paulsen Inobe, PhD, 10/24/02

| Behavior OnLine Home Page | Disclaimer |

Copyright © 1996-2004 Behavior OnLine, Inc. All rights reserved.