Newsgroups: bit.listserv.psycgrad
Date:         Thu, 9 Apr 1992 16:59:47 EDT
              <PSYCGRAD@UOTTAWA.BITNET>
From:         "Matthew Simpson" <054340@UOTTAWA.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Matthew's comments
              9 Apr 1992 13:24:59 PDT from <vanman@GIRTAB.USC.EDU>

On Thu, 9 Apr 1992 13:24:59 PDT Eric Vanman said:
>
>Matthew's stand is that it is not the therapy that should be evaluated
>for legitimacy, but rather it's the therapist who should be--as long as
>the therapist follows legal and ethical guidelines, anything's legitimate.
>
Clarification:  I propose that it is the job that the therapist does that
should be evaluated, not the tools to complete the job (not the technique).
Two plumbers can repair the plumbing in two different houses, using the
same monkey wrench and the same method, yet one house can receive a far
superior repair job than the other.

>As a strong advocate for psychology as a SCIENCE, as well as a practice,
>I strongly disagree with Matthew's opinion.  Why should anyone pay mega-bucks
>for therapy or give psychologists any respect, if we can't validate and/or
>substantiate our methods with empirical research?  If I follow Matthew's

If a psychotherapist is most interested in mega-bucks and respect,
then he should publish empirical research to make a big name and big bucks.
This is completely out of line right?  I shouldn't take your motives out
of context should I?  Hmmm, let's look what happened here....

>argument, then if I decide to develop a therapy completely based on
>astrology (e.g., "You're a Gemini, so here's how to deal with your depression"
>not based on any kind of "legitimate" research, as long as I stay ethical
>and legal no one should question the legitimacy of my methods, right?

That's right.  No one should question the legitimacy of a standard method.
One SHOULD question the ability of a psychotherapist to do a good job
(ie. ability to do what he or she claims to be able to do).  Don't judge
the monkey wrench (tool) or the nature of the blue prints (method), look
at the final product.  Look at what the therapist does with the method or
the tools.  Haven't you heard in your clinical courses that the process is
as important as the content?  Outcome-based literature, by its nature,
only looks at the content (the tool and the standard method).  It does not
look at what each individual psychotherapist does.  This is where much of
the conflicting evidence in the outcome-based literature comes from.

>The problem with Matthew's plumbing analogy is that I can evaluate the
>plumber based on how successfully he completes my plumbing job--then I can
>tell if his plumbing method is "legitimate."  How should we best evaluate the
>legitimacy (i.e, effectiveness) of regression therapy?

Yet this fails to ask the question, "How do we best evaluate the application
of regression therapy?"

>
>Frankly, my greatest worry about our field is that it is NOT advancing quickly
>enough, especially in our clinical methods.  There are far too many clinical

That's because the field of psychology is trapped right now in its develop-
ment.  It is stuck looking at the wrong data.  If you conceptualize everything
based on there being "a problem," then you have to do some sort of measure
of the amount of the problem that the individual is experiencing at pre and
post-therapeutic tests.  If the outcome data shows (at post test) that there
is a change in the "amount of the problem," then the attribution is made
regarding the standard method applied in the therapy.

If, however, you take a fresh look into what psychotherapists DO (I mean
actually do, second by second) in the psychotherapeutic session, and
you look at which activities lead to good moments, then one can grasp
an entirely different dimension of data that the outcome-based research
does not address.  What immediately precedes a good moment in the
psychotherapeutic session?  What does the therapist do to bring that
about?

>therapies that have little support for their "legitimacy."  Outcome research
>using sound empirical methods is far too rare.  Knowing what research exists
>about regression therapy would be the best way to determine its legitimacy.
>Unfortunately, that research doesn't provide many answers, yet people like
>this Boston psychiatrist practice it probably because either (1) her training
>was in this and/or (2) she thinks it's "neat" and fits in with her view of
>the world.  Should this really be the way we should proceed as mental health
>care providers, as long as we "follow ethical and legal guidelines?"
>
I think the point was missed somewhere along the line.  Many people use
regression in hypnosis.  When skilled professionals do this appropriately,
often good results are achieved.  Just because one person uses a technique
inappropriately or in an unskilled manner, this does not mean that the
technique is "invalid."  I think much of the bashing that "regression
therapy" has received on this list is based on:
1) Journalistic sensationalism
2) possible unethical conduct in conjunction with its application.

Please correct me if I am wrong.  Regression therapy is not a standard
body of literature that holds a tenant which proposes forcing transference
on a client via memorization.

Have fun with this one.  :)

  __    ||   __
  -\\   ||  //-      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
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU