Talk:Eye movement desensitization and reprocessing/Archive 2

message: The changes i made on Monday appear to have been removed without discussion.
I changed the previous content because it was out of date and inconsistent with emerging literature (last two years). This was necessary as the conclusions on the pages were firstly at odds with the findings of committees from around the world that EMDR is evidence based practise.  Hence the section titled ‘Effectiveness: expert consensus guidelines’.  Their resultant views are likely to present a more balanced view than what I read when I opened the page last week.  I think this section needs to stay and only be chaged when new guidelines emerge.
Secondly any suggestions that the treatment is not an empirically supported is absurd.  Especially given recent studies such as Van der Kolk's et al (2007) work published in the Journal of Clinical Psychiatry that EMDR out performed Fluoxetine, Rothbaums large and very rigorous study published in Journal of Traumatic Stress on EMDR versus traditional exposure, the most recent meta-analytic study by Shidler and Wagner (2006) in Psychological Medicine.  Any discussion on effectiveness needs to consider current studies. 
Thirdly the article ignores reviews and a process study by implying that EMDR works the same as traditional exposure.  WE now know this does not seem to be the case for details see 
Lee, C. W., Taylor, G., & Drummond, P. (2006). The active ingredient in EMDR; is it traditional exposure or dual focus of attention? Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy, 13, 97-107.
Any discussion on mechanism of action needs to account for process studies on the methods.
Finally I found it very odd that a science based publication was describing the recent history of what happened to an institution that once provided training to a currently licensed practitioner.  Seemed liked a personal attack to me not a scientific argument. 
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dr Chris Lee (talk • contribs) 05:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: the evalution section and the controversy section require integration I think. It is not relevant if someone supports or opposed the method, it matters that the presentation of material be npov.  Fremte (talk) 19:31, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: all my comments were removed 

message: Hey, what happened to the debate, the criticism, the scientific research, the citations? Did that last editor Lmaxfield mean to remove it all?Fainites 21:44, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: on content, I don't think that if there are 5 meta-analysis you should only add two positive ones in the intro when the biggest, Devilly's, is not positive.Fainites 22:19, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Outside reader

message: Some anonymous user User:58.178.125.188 has taken it upon himself to majorly rewrite the article... are we happy with the changes? Kat, Queen of Typos 00:09, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe the entire article should be reverted to a version before that anon user edited this.  There are now footnotes (36) that are linked to nothing and no citations are provided.  I propose that we begin again with the version before anon user 58.178...  OK?DPetersontalk 22:03, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, Faintes.  So, unless I hear any comment to the contrary, I will do this in the next couple of days...leaving some time for others to comment. DPetersontalk 23:03, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree also.  Fainites, I wasn't referring to your edits. You were signed in. :) I posted on the anon user's talk page to invite him/her here, but apparently he/she hasn't come.  Kat, Queen of Typos 06:05, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I did the revert...maybe now we can add back what was relevant and sourced. DPetersontalk 22:50, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

text: That's a good idea Lmaxfield. Kat, Queen of Typos 11:45, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm on the same page with you two.  I like the recent edits...very good.  I was also thinking that something about any controversies needed to be added and creating a specific section for that is a great idea.  RalphLendertalk 14:10, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Major rewrites

message: The changes i made on Monday appear to have been removed without discussion.
I changed the previous content because it was out of date and inconsistent with emerging literature (last two years). This was necessary as the conclusions on the pages were firstly at odds with the findings of committees from around the world that EMDR is evidence based practise.  Hence the section titled ‘Effectiveness: expert consensus guidelines’.  Their resultant views are likely to present a more balanced view than what I read when I opened the page last week.  I think this section needs to stay and only be chaged when new guidelines emerge.
Secondly any suggestions that the treatment is not an empirically supported is absurd.  Especially given recent studies such as Van der Kolk's et al (2007) work published in the Journal of Clinical Psychiatry that EMDR out performed Fluoxetine, Rothbaums large and very rigorous study published in Journal of Traumatic Stress on EMDR versus traditional exposure, the most recent meta-analytic study by Shidler and Wagner (2006) in Psychological Medicine.  Any discussion on effectiveness needs to consider current studies. 
Thirdly the article ignores reviews and a process study by implying that EMDR works the same as traditional exposure.  WE now know this does not seem to be the case for details see 
Lee, C. W., Taylor, G., & Drummond, P. (2006). The active ingredient in EMDR; is it traditional exposure or dual focus of attention? Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy, 13, 97-107.
Any discussion on mechanism of action needs to account for process studies on the methods.
Finally I found it very odd that a science based publication was describing the recent history of what happened to an institution that once provided training to a currently licensed practitioner.  Seemed liked a personal attack to me not a scientific argument. 
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dr Chris Lee (talk • contribs) 05:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Dr Chris Lee may be new to Wikipedia and unsure of how it works, but I did warn him on his talk page that we were going to revert the edits because of the anonymous user's edits prior to his - so no, the edits were not reverted without discussion. Kat, Queen of Typos 05:09, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: all my comments were removed 

message: You are right a section on matters that are still controversial needs to be added I have done so and welcome any additional comments you wish to make Dr Chris Lee —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fainites (talk • contribs) 14:48, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the additions...helpful.RalphLendertalk 16:30, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good points.SamDavidson 23:20, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I think you could add that and it would certainly be an improvement. DPetersontalk 00:08, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: re reply to [User:Lmaxfield|Lmaxfield] 

message: EMDR is a pretty hot topic in psychology and is quickly becoming one of the most widely used (for better or for worse) methods in all of clinical psychology. it should at least be of medium if not high importance...128.239.158.219 04:57, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have a source for that? Kat, Queen of Typos 05:13, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with a medium rating. SamDavidson 17:11, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  importance rating 

message: User:68.146.133.56 has added a long section on how post-traumatic stress causes an immediate reaction to past traumas - I think it needs a review, and may possibly be more appropriate in the article about PTSD. Kat, Queen of Typos 02:38, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since no one seems interested in commenting, I've removed it - I don't think it fits this article well. Kat, Queen of Typos 21:22, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Review of newest section needed

message: I do not edit references well... at the end of the first paragraph, it says "Appendix A. Handbook of EMDR and Family Therapy Processes. New York: Wiley." - could someone edit that into a proper ref link? Kat, Queen of Typos 21:20, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done.  As well, I'm changing the journal references to follow the tamplate on this page, for standardization as per WP:MEDMOS.  One distinct advantage is having the link to the abstact of the article, which makes the research more accessible.  I'm just giving this heads-up so nobody thinks I'm making wild changes for no good reason. Absentis 17:43, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Reference edit needed

message: I read the Dianetics book quite a while ago, so I may be remembering incorrectly, but this therapy seems similar to the engram clearing talked about in that book. Was just wondering if anyone else knew of a connection between the two?Ronar 17:25, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know much about dianetics, but I've never heard them compared. Kat, Queen of Typos 07:23, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Only insofar as both are scientifically dubious concepts.  I.e., http://skepdic.com/emdr.html  EMDR is more New Age-y, Dianetics is more old-skool pulp sci-fi wacky with an undertone of fascism.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.227.120.26 (talk) 20:53, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't forget that both Dianetics and EMDR also put vast amounts of money into the pockets of people whose sole qualification to practice medicine is a $29 certificate from the originating body.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.227.120.26 (talk) 16:00, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am wondering why you would make such a false statement...???!  To be trained in EMDR, a person must have the minimum of a masters degree and be licensed as a mental health professional by an association that ensures accountability to the public.    Lmaxfield 05:08, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Any relation to dianetics? 

message: Removed text: However, this analysis has a methodological flaw.Lee, C.W. Analysis of critical components and processes in treatment of trauma memories with EMDR. in EMDRIA 2005. Seattle USA: EMDRIA.   The degrees of freedom used to examine the level of significance of the effect was based on the number of studies rather than the number of participants which is the convention.Rosenthal, R. and M.R. DiMatteo, Meta analysis: Recent developments in quantitative methods for literature reviews. Annual Review of Psychology, 2001. 52: p. 59-82.  When this is corrected, the actual effect size obtained of r=.15 (eye movement over no eye movement) is significant.
I doubt the veracity of these statements for a few reasons.  Firstly, the criticism comes from a source with a vested interest in EMDR, and was not published in an academic journal.  Secondly, a well-known researcher from the IoP stated that the meta-analysis was "well done".  Unfortunately, my knowledge of statistics does not (yet) cover meta analysis, so I can't really say one way or the other.  Is there an objective expert that can weigh in on this? Absentis 18:46, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Meta analysis criticism 

message: Text: A recent review highlighted the evidence that the eye movement in EMDR does produce a differential effect.Servan-Schreiber, D., Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing: Is Psychiatry Missing the Point? Psychiatric Times, 2000. XVII(7): p. 36-40. In contrast to no eye movement, eye movements produce changes in physiological measures including reductions in blood pressure, heart rate and galvanic skin response.
Some studies have supported a differential effect of eye movements over eyes stationary.  In comparison to no eye movements and a passive visual interference task, eye movements resulted in a greater reduction in vividness of undergraduate students emotional memories.Kavanagh, D.J., et al., Effects of visuospatial tasks on desensitization to emotive memories. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 2001. 40(3): p. 267-280.  Similarly, memory recollections after eye movements were less vivid and less distressing compared to both a finger tapping and no dual-task control condition.van den Hout, M., et al., Autobiographical memories become less vivid and emotional after eye movements. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 2001. 40(2): p. 121-130. Other dual tasks such as spatial tapping have also proven less effective than eye movements in reducing the distress and vividness of memories of personal experiences. However this differential effect for eye movement was not found for non personal memories such as photographs that contained distressing content. 
Subsequent research has shown that eye movement facilitates memory processing for episodic memory but not semantic memory.Christman, S.D., et al., Bilateral eye movements enhance the retrieval of episodic memories. Neuropsychology, 2003. 17(2): p. 221-229.  In fact the mean effect size for each study that has investigated eye movement over no eye movement was found to increase from .15 to .28, when studies of contrived traumas were removed from the analysis.Lee, C.W. Analysis of critical components and processes in treatment of trauma memories with EMDR. in EMDRIA 2005. Seattle USA: EMDRIA.
The effects of eye movements compared to an eye stationary condition was also investigated for both positive and negative memories.Barrowcliff, A.L., et al., Eye-movements reduce the vividness, emotional valence and electrodermal arousal associated with negative autobiographical memories. Journal of Forensic Psychiatry & Psychology, 2004. 15(2): p. 325-345.  The eye movement condition yielded greater reductions than the eye stationary condition in vividness, subjective emotional arousal, and physiological arousal for memories connected with vivid images associated with fear and anxiety. The reduction in vividness also occurred with memories of positive experiences.
:I've taken this text out of the section on 'eye movements' because it does not deal directly with whether or not eye movements are a necessary part of the therapy.  This text is better suited to the section 'How does EMDR work?', and should be integrated together. Absentis 21:43, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eye movement controversy 

message: I've hidden the text under this headline because I have trouble believing this kind of information belongs in an encyclopedia article.  
I could understand a reference to an organization in terms of the history of the therapy (like when the APA recognized it as a therapy) but to simply list all the organizations/associations that support the therapy is clearly POV pushing. Unless a clear consensus can be reached I'll delete the information in due time. Absentis 21:55, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The APA never recognized it as a therapy. Read the text more carefully. FatherTree 14:19, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Actually, this American Psychiatric Association PTSD treatment guideline (approved in June 2004) clearly shows they recognize EMDR as an effective therapy.  Sadly, it is you who needs to read the text more carefully.  Absentis 14:52, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Read the disclaimer at the top. FatherTree 00:49, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've read more than just the disclaimer. So? Absentis 01:02, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  '''Effectiveness: expert consensus guidelines''' 

message: The effectiveness section suffers from basic flaw of comparing EMDR with other treatments, but not presenting the research that discusses the controversy about the necessity of the eye movements.  The "controvery" section later and this evaluation section require integration to objectively present the evaluation of the EMDR method. Fremte (talk) 19:26, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It is misleading to say that EMDR is effective but that the central mechanism on which the therapy is based may be unsupported.  EMDR might be equivalent to singing with a patient during desensitization therapy; we would not accept that the singing was the ingredient that promoted the change, we would accept the desensitization as the change ingredient, even if the patient likes the singing due to the interesting theory of how singing activates a brain area that counteracts traumatic memories.   I am not being flip or joking about the singing example, I have heard it discussed this way.  Thus this article must present all of the perspectives on the method per WP:NPOV and not just the one you or any other contributor prefers.  Respectfully, Fremte (talk) 00:54, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The "central mechanism" for all therapies is unsupported - even exposure therapy and desensitization! No one knows what the mechanisms of action are, for even the most recognized treatments (Kazdin, 2005).  Your basic premise that the mechanisms of action must be empirically supported is invalid.  You are imagining a far greater knowledge about therapeutic components than currently exists.  For example, you keep inserting phrases saying that EMDR=imaginal exposure. Actually, there is evidence that EMDR is not exposure and evidence that removing eye movements results in poorer outcomes.  Please read the EMDR literature and cited studies before coming to conclusions based on things that you have heard "discussed this way".  In areas of controversy it is important to read the original documents and not rely on reviews conducted by others. Lmaxfield (talk) 16:25, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: POV tag added to evaluation of effectiveness

message: This section could either be shortened and leave the info that says this method works to later where it is already reviewed, or needs to add some few sentences and words to represent the controversy about EMDR.  I thus put the banner on the intro section until this is fixed. Respectfully, Fremte (talk) 18:46, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro section is non-neutral 

message: I noticed that a NPOV tag was added to the page, but there appears to be nothing here on the discussion page outlining why the tag was added.  I thought that it was a policy of wikapedia that if such a tag was added to an article then you needed to "at least leave a note on the article's talk page describing what you consider unacceptable about the article. The note should address the problem with enough specificity to allow constructive discussion towards a resolution, such as identifying specific passages, elements, or phrasings that are problematic."
Consensus is not possible, and making this page acceptable to those involved is not possible if the problems with the page are not clearly outlined.  Once specific problems are identified, then editors can discuss and resolve them. Is it possible for the person who added the tag to outline the changes they would like to see on the page for the tag to be removed? or is it fair to remove the tag until the probems are outlined on this page?  Sschubert (talk) 06:56, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:   POV tag added to page 

message: The following comment was removed as the statement was not referenced:
"John Grinder has claimed that he gave the technique to Shapiro after she asked him for help with a victim of rape." 165.118.1.50 (talk) 09:05, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Was Shapiro the original developer?

message: Hey, anyone who is paying attention to this page: there are two sections labeled "Mechanism".  Surely this needs to be fixed.  If you could help with that, that'd be awesome.  (By the way, there really ought to be a "History" section in this article, no?).  Cheers, Doctormatt (talk) 06:38, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Two mechanism sections?

message: Please weigh in on the general discussion of capitalization of therapeutic systems – "Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing" vs. "eye movement desensitization and reprocessing" at the psychology WikiProject. /skagedaltalk 09:00, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Capitalization 

message: :The following was moved from Talk:Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing/Comments, which is for comments on article review, not general discussion, which belongs here /skagedaltalk 22:03, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a treatment that is strongly recommended for use in the treatment of trauma by some of the major researchers in the field, such as Van der Kolk and Briere (See, for example, Principles of Trauma Treatment, edited by Biere & Scott, 2006 or the White Paper on Complex Post Traumatic Stress Disorder by the National Trauma Center. DPetersontalk 00:54, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

text: But the usefulness of the eye movements are apparently not seperated from the other parts of the therapy.  EMDR may well be effective but not because of the eye movements, but due to EMDR being a desensitization therapy.  Both the perspective that eye movements are (1) needed, and, (2) not needed, for the therapy to be effective must be present in the article for a balanced presentation per WP:NPOV policy. Fremte (talk) 00:44, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Evidence discussion 

message: Move should be uncontroversial. Parsecboy (talk) 13:57, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 

message: This article on EMDR has developed following extensive discussions regarding the status, effectiveness, and processes involved in EMDR. The following statement appears to have been added to the article without initiating a discussion or offering an explanation for statement on this page: "However, the effectiveness of the mechanisms behind EMDR has been questioned, with most leading researchers concluding that cognitive restructuring (which is common in most therapies for PTSD), rather than the eye movements, are responsible for change. It is generally believed that it works because of the exposure therapy it provides, as well as a robust placebo effect." This statement is also not referenced, thus, the statement has removed from the introduction paragraph.
Past discussions have led to the development of a controversies section on the EMDR page. I suggest this comment may be more appropriate in this section, if referenced appropriately.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sschubert (talk • contribs) 15:51, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: additions to the introductory paragraph made without discussion

message: Two section with the same name.. Let's unify or?--151.50.154.167 (talk) 09:48, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mechanism sections