Great discussion...but let's not lose sight of the fact that all data are not created equal, so to speak. That proponents of EMDR test the protocol and consistently find superiority is not that convincing to me. Look at the authors and you will see that those who are not EMDR proponents are in general finding no difference or the reverse effect. Look at Luborsky's idea of researcher allegiance to explain this phenomenon. Now that "CBT" researchers find the opposite effect could also imply that they are simply biased in the reverse. I'd agree, but it still doesn't support the claims of EMDR proponents about any superiority. Remember that the burden is on them to back up their claims, not for CBT researchers to disprove them. CBT researchers have their own burden of proof but seem to be less hindered by it because they don't have such high financial and proprietary stakes in the process as EMDR folks do. What may be happening is this--EMDR and more general CBT protocols are largely similar in essence, however there might be some emerging data suggesting that specifically prolonging the exposure part (and not diluting it with other techniques) works better than EMDR (and perhaps these other CBT approaches like that of Marks et al.), which may explain the new Rothbaum results. Not enough data to conclude this yet though.
| Behavior OnLine Home Page | Disclaimer |
Copyright © 1996-2004 Behavior OnLine, Inc. All rights reserved.