From: 054340@UOTTAWA.BITNET (Matthew Simpson)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.psycgrad
Subject: Re: My motives and regression
Date: 10 Apr 92 18:02:58 GMT
              <PSYCGRAD@UOTTAWA.BITNET>
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU

On Thu, 9 Apr 1992 18:22:42 PDT Someone     said:
>seeking out empirical support for what they do.  This is where the
>discussion of ethics comes into play for me. I cannot accept the
>suggestion Matthew appears to make that we should leave it up to each
>individual psychotherapist to determine what is effective or appropriate
>for psychotherapy.  Matthew, what is the point of our existence as members of
>a scientific field, if we are not collectively constantly re-evaluating
>our methods based on facts?  Shouldn't we all be striving to search for
>the best methods possible to aid those who seek therapy (as well
>as those who don't)?  And isn't the best way to make such evaluations
>through the dialogues we have as scientists (who practice science)?

Absolutely!  Please read my previous messages.  I am not argueing agaist
evaluation of what a therapist does in a therapy session.  I AM argueing
agaist:
1. labeling a standard approach as X-therapy
2. assuming that everyone that does X-therapy does the same thing in the
   therapeutic session.
3. allowing some single individual or group (experimenters) to lable what
   they consider to be positive outcome, and then test the therapy on the
   basis of its (their) ability to achieve Y-outcome.

Who gave them the right to descide WHAT IS DONE in the SECOND BY SECOND
interaction between the therapist and the client.  Who gave them the
right to say that everyone does the same thing in those seconds?  Who
gave them the right to say that a given therapy must achieve some
prescribed outcome (which they can't evaluate good enough to suit me).

>
>4.  Finally, I did not say that we should wait until a method is
>thoroughly tested before it is used to help people. Now, I think that
>regression therapy has had a good 80 years to be tested...it only helps
>a few people out some of the time with some issues.  Whether

Please read what you wrote here carefully while asking these questions:
1. As tested by who and under what method of testing?
2. (Here is the big question) "...helps a few people out..." to do what?
   Who descided on what the "what" was going to be?

>the same results could be obtained by having a mechanic talk
>to the client for an hour each week, or whether success with regression
>occurs more ofen than could be predicted by chance alone, we do not know
>BECAUSE GOOD OUTCOME RESEARCH is not being done as much as it should.

What if you completely dropped the idea of outcome and only looked at
the within-the-session good moments?  Don't we evaluate our effectiveness
on what happens in the session?  What are we going to do, asign ourselves
the role of private investigator and follow the person around and wait to
detect what we deem to be the appropriate outcome?  No, of couse not.  We
administer a questionnaire asking the person if they have had good outcome.
And then the person is stuck there feeling required to answer to questionnaire
in the right way, because they want to look good to the therapist.

>The same could be said about other therapies as well. We (as psychologists)
>should recognize these limitations and be constantly seeking better ways to
>help clients, but more often than not, I think we don't.

I think we are all in agreement on this one.  Yet we will quarrel about the
method.

Thank you very much for the good words.  Have fun.

  __    ||   __
  -\\   ||  //-      O=====================================O
    \\__||_//         |Matthew Simpson (origin: St. Louis)|
     \__||_/          |Clinical Psychology; U. of Ottawa  |
        ||            |BITNET:   054340@UOTTAWA           |
        ||            |INTERNET: 054340@ACADVM1.UOTTAWA.CA|
        ||           O=====================================O
        ||            "There is no life I know like the world
      ======           of pure imagination" Willie Wonka