Talk:Dyadic developmental psychotherapy/Archive 1

message: This is my article and I am the holder of the copyright.  When the article was previously printed I allowed printing of the article, but retained ownership of the copyright.
Arthur Becker-Weidman, Ph.D.,
Center For Family Development
716-810-0790
AWeidman@Concentric.net
The comment above relates to an earlier version of the article, which had been marked as a possible copyright infringement. It was published on another site, but the assertion seems genuine enough to me. During the review, User:AWeidman followed the procedure given for rewriting the article on a /Temp subpage. As that version seemed to me more in the style of a encyclopedia article, and was better referenced etc., I moved it in place over the original version, which remains available in the page history. --Michael Snow 22:49, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright 

message: This page is growing well.  The evidence base for this form of treatment is rapidly expanding.
Forgot to sign in RalphLender 20:41, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As a reader of this, and other pages, it might be useful for you to read the book 'Creating Capacity For Attachment'  edited by Dr. Becker-Weidman & Deborah Shell, Wood N Barnes, Oklahoma City:OK 2005 as that has an excellent description of the theory base for Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy.  I found nothing in that book that suggest the approach is coercive.  I aldo found no references to Foster Cline.  The book has an excellent chapter about work with parents too; this has nothing in it about "age regression," which, to my reading, is not a part of this treatment approach.  The approach is consistent with APSAC and various other practice parameters.  So, I think all your concerns have been addressed in that text.  RalphLender 15:27, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree.  The book and articles are clear.  The approach is not coercive and does not use "age-regression" as part of the method.  I see no point in continuing this "dialogue" and giving validity to views that are not relevant.  The facts, as previously put, are quite clear.  RalphLender 13:57, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I have to agree with RalphLender JonesRD 21:55, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Page is growing nicely

message: I added a couple of references that show support for several of the principles of Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy.  If others have references or thoughts, let me know. DPeterson 02:39, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Supporting References 

message: I ('MarkWood 20:32, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy Adherence to APSAC Task Force Report Recommendations 

message: I thought the following would be of value in understanding this model of treatment.  SamDavidson 15:52, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Adherence to American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry Practice Parameter

message: The two sections above are good material and certainly provide excellent background information.  Thank you both for taking the time to research and post that material.  JonesRD 16:57, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Good Material

message: There are two peer reviewed studies by Dr. Becker-Weidman, one in the J of C&A SW and one in New Developments in Child Abuse Research.  I think the second one may discuss AD and RAD...Hughes work discusses both.  However, replacing A.D. with RAD would be fine, I suppose...where would you specifically suggest that occur?
If you have other specific proposals, put the 'wording' in a new section for comment and review.  I don't find the claims "extraordinary," just credible and based in verifiable sources.
Your final proposal is interesting, so, put it into a spcific section below so editors can review it and comment on it and build agreement...by put it into a section, I mean write precisely what you want the article to read...the words, so editors can comment.  
Hughes makes clear he does not use physically coercive methods...read the articles.  In those articles it is also clear how the approach is congruent with various professional standards.  
Right, make the changes/proposals here...write exactly what you want in the article here first...good idea.
RalphLendertalk 16:03, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is excellent.  I like the layout.  It has a broad range of sources and references.  Makes for good and credible reading. SamDavidson 20:34, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: COMMENTS

message: How do other's feel about changing the words "'This therapy is effective'" to '"Two studies concluded that this therapy is effective.  In those studies..."'  This proposal was made by Shotwell, see above section.
DPetersontalk 13:15, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I appreciate that we're working together, but my other points have not been addressed. Please address the points listed above before removing the verify tag again. shotwell 14:57, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal on change in language

message: In addition to having POV issues, this article was in dire need of some wikification. In doing the references, I was unable to find which claims the following references were supporting:
# Bowlby, J. (1969,1982) Attachment [Vol. 1 of Attachment and Loss]. London: Hogarth Press; New York, Basic Books; Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin (1971).  .
# Bowlby, J. (1973) Separation: Anxiety & Anger [Vol. 2 of Attachment and Loss]. London: Hogarth Press; New York: Basic Books; Harmondsworth: Penguin (1975). .
# Bretherton, I. (1992)  "The origins of attachment theory".  Developmental Psychology, 28:759-775.
# Holmes, J. (1993) John Bowlby and Attachment Theory.  London: Routledge. .
If you can show me what claims they support, I'll add the reference tags. Moreover, one claim was referenced by (Dozier, 2001,(16) Tyrell 1999 (17)) and these papers were not listed in the references section. If someone could give me all the information about those, I'll add them in. 
This is not an endorsement of the references; it just needed to be done because the article was nearly impossible to read. shotwell 00:53, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Didn't intend to blank part of it. The issue was a missing slash on a <ref> tag. shotwell 01:02, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I am also going to reorganize it per the Manual of Style. If you don't like it, revert it. Please read the manual of style though. shotwell 01:19, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Quite helpful.  I have added several references...I don't have the time at this moment to add the reference tags and such for all...but will do that later if you don't get to it first. I've also added several additional references. DPetersontalk 02:41, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikify

message: DDP is certainly motivated by attachment theory, but it is misleading to say that the therapy is "grounded in the works of Bowlby". Such a proposition seems to imply that the treatment is theoretically sound. The truth of the matter is that DDP appears to make use of seemingly bizarre techniques which have little or no scientific basis. Becker-Weidman and Hughes are the only people making the claim concerning Bowlby. We can't reference the claim using their works because they are not independent sources. This should be easy to fix because we'd only need to change such assertions to "DDP is motivated by the work of Bowlby". shotwell 22:30, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your statement is an opintion, not a fact.  The fact is that the therapy is grounded in Bowlby's attachment theory as described in several verfiable and reliable sources.  RalphLendertalk 23:41, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it is most certainly my opinion. The people claiming it is "grounded" in the works of Bowlby are the people who developed DDP. Their assertions in published mediums do not qualify as independent sources. Moreover, Hughes self-published or published with very low quality publishers for most or all of his works. DDP was not introduced through the standard academic channels. Until Becker-Weidman published a study, there had been no true scientific discourse on the topic. shotwell 00:08, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

text: No, they support the proposition "Proponents of DDP are motivated by the works of Bowlby". This issue may be easy to solve. What do you mean by "grounded"? When I read "grounded in the works of Bowlby", I read "the logical extension of Bowlby's attachment theory" or something similar. shotwell 02:03, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm aware of the motivations for DDP. I'm not well-versed enough in psychology to determine if the motivation is logically or theoretically sound. Declaring that DDP is grounded in the works of Bowlby seems to imply that DDP is theoretically sound. I'm sure that Becker-Weidman and Hughes believe as much, but unless someone credible and independent says this, I believe we should just change the claims to "motivated by" or "Becker-Weidman and Hughes say...". The issue is that the developers of DDP could have made some theoretical mistake in reasoning and nobody credible aside from proponents of DDP have confirmed their reasoning. shotwell 16:48, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The purpose of peer review is to eliminate studies that do not meet acceptable scientific standards.  Maybe you don't have familiarity with the peer review process, and if so I'd encourge you to read up on it so that you can have confidence in the material published in the journals and other publications cited.  DDP is evidence-based in that there is evidence in at least two professional peer reviewed publications and that meets the Wikipedia policy regarding the verifiability of statements. The chapter on theory in the book Dr. Becker-Weidman edited clearly describes the "grounding" of DDP in Attachment theory as so several of the articles by Dr. Hughes.JohnsonRon 19:39, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you've misunderstood me. Becker-Weidman's book is not an independent source and we can't use it to assert that DDP is grounded in the works of Bowlby. What is wrong with saying "Hughes and Becker-Weidman were motivated by Bowlby's work on attachment"? This statement is more informative. Furthermore, it is most certainly true, whereas the statement "DDP is grounded in the work of Bowlbly" is ambiguous and potentially false. shotwell 20:55, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Grounded in the works of Bowlby"

message: These are the things that I'd like to see happen:
*Remove assertions of efficacy.  shotwell 22:30, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have a more reasonable answer? Can you address the Child Maltreatment conclusion? shotwell 02:26, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

text: There is no clear support for evidential basis. Please see the Child Maltreatment conclusions. Those conclusions demonstrate that there needs to be further study. As I've addressed above, a single study does not allow us to make broad assertions of this nature.shotwell 02:26, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Once again, the issue is not clear. If the issue were clear, we wouldn't be discussing this, Becker-Weidman would have never written to Child Maltreatment, and the editors would never have responded. It isn't clear in the scientific community and we need to represent the fact. shotwell 02:26, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, the task-force report authors clarified that DDP was not mentioned in the task-force report. It is worth noting that even Becker-Weidman appears to have been confused about the issue of DDP's mention in the APSAC report (as suggested by his letter to Child Maltreatment). As for your quote from the Child Maltreatment reply, you are very peculiarly misrepresenting the author's intentions of that reply. shotwell 02:26, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I would say that two people constitutes a scientific minority. Could you please elaborate beyond a single word? shotwell 02:26, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, but they all appear to be specialized in this area. Go read Spectrum of a C-star-algebra; it is clear to me, how about you? Luckily for this article, we could explain much of it in terms that ordinary people would understand. This is not a matter that we should need to argue about. I was hoping that some of the experts could work on making the article more clear when it comes to exlaining the practice of DDP. How does the therapist go about enacting PACE or PLACE? Doesn't every therapist seek to setup a safe environment? Could a random non-specialist person of average intelligence come here and understand generally understand what would happen during a DDP treatment? shotwell 02:26, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, I am apparently wrong about DDP not being taught anywhere. I will investigate that further. Aside from that point, I fail to see how you have addressed my concerns. shotwell 00:08, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your "concerns" have been raised before by you and Sarner and others and adequately addressed each time.  Please read the above sections from the beginning of the discussion page and you will find each point addressed
DPetersontalk 01:24, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, and they were not adequetly adressed in my mind. Perhaps you could try to rephrase or expand upon your position? If presented with sufficiently reasonable arguments, I'd happily leave these issues alone. shotwell 02:26, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Solutions

message: I find this article well written and the "concerns" in the previous section as having been adequately addressed many times as many other editors have commented on.  This seems to be part of a long running disupte involving the Bowlby, Candace Newmaker, and Advocates for Children in Therapy articles. DPetersontalk 01:24, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See dispute http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-10-07_Advocates_for_Children_in_Therapy
DPetersontalk 01:26, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Sorry, I mean that, based on the substantial extent to which these issues have been debated here and on several other pages over a long period of time and that a large number of editors find the article acceptable, that the article stay as written and not be changed as you or Sarner have proposed.  Each time the broad consensus has been to not make the changes that you have reintroducted here again.   DPetersontalk 02:14, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah. I am still confused, but now for a different reason. No article on wikipedia is static and each article changes (for better or worse) as new editors are introduced into the fold. About six editors agree on this article and they're all specialized in this area. That does not constitute a broad consensus. Do you expect this article to remain static? shotwell 02:31, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a broad consensus on the article's statements.  While it is true that you and Sarner disagree, the fact is that a concensus exists.  Furthermore, the basis for each point you dispute is verifiable (according to Wikipedia standards) and uses reliable sources.  DPetersontalk 02:48, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sarner is not taking part in this debate. Why bring him up? shotwell 17:11, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't believe that a straw poll can resolve this dispute. Straw polls are typically used to quickly gauge whether or not there is consensus. It is pretty clear where everyone stands here. You might be interested to know, however, that there is a considerable dispute occurring over the "guidelines/essays/whatever" at WP:STRAW and WP:DDV. (part of a much more serious dispute than our own...  arbitration, in fact). At any rate, it'd be helpful if you elaborated upon DPeterson's position as opposed to giving a restatement. shotwell 15:38, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Keep Article as written: Poll/comments

message: It appears that the dispute has been resolved and the mediation case can be closed with the result being the article as is.  That is a fine resolution that appears to represent consensus. JonesRDtalk 21:20, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is fine for the mediation to be ended so long as that means that I don't have to argue this same issue for a third time!  RalphLendertalk 00:19, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is an acceptable result. MarkWood 01:42, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: MEDIATION ENDED WITH AGREEMENT TO LEAVE ARTICLE AS IS

message: I've tried googling for the ref no. 4 several times with no effect. The only site that comes up is Wikipedia! Can somebody check this ref please, or better still, provide a link. Fainites 22:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you look up the doi number you can find it...Also you can find it on the website for the Journal http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/toc/camh/0/0 in which it will be published. DPetersontalk 23:07, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Speaking of references, you may want to keep an eye out for an article by Pignotti and Mercer that will be in "Research on Social Work Practice" this summer. This paper critiques evidence that has been put forward in support of both holding therapy and DDP. Peer review is not the Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval; readers still need to examine evidence and conclusions with care. Incidentally, I'm surprised that DDP proponents are not listing a recent paper that argues in favor of their views.Jean Mercer 12:58, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As one of the three leaders of the fringe advocacy group, ACT, your editorials and promotional materials are a bit suspect. Your continued attacks on this subject are curious given the multiple empirical research studies and othe material showing your statements to be false. DPetersontalk 13:01, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But... doesn't the fact that it's peer-reviewed make my paper completely correct? That seems to be what you're saying about your own cited material. When everything is peer-reviewed, and yet the conclusions contradict each other, it's time to look at some of the details of the work, is it not? Speaking of curious, I'm curious as to what material other than empirical work would actually be relevant here, and why the conclusiveness of an investigation is not to be connected with the design. Is the argument now based on practice wisdom and family values, rather than an acceptable evidentiary basis? If so, this should be stated, rather than trying to bring these things under the EBP tent.(As to promotional materials, I don't think I personally have any, except my c.v.,nor editorials neither.)Jean Mercer 22:50, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Mercer, you are pushing your own material...DPeterson is not the author of any studies I can find on this subject.  Furthermore, your background isn't clinical psychology, right?  Your CV and bio show no licensure in NJ as a mental health professional...correct? or any clinical experience as a mental health practitioner, yes? Wikipedia requires that statements be verifiable and the statements and references cited meet that criteria...I recommend that you read the relevant Wikipedia statements. SamDavidson 00:31, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I asked questions and provided verifiable information about publications. If you can't answer or use these, there's not much point in your contributing to the discussion-- that is, if the goal is to provide the public with suitable mental health information.If the goal is commercial benefit for persons unnamed, of course you are going about it in the right way.Jean Mercer 13:51, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Dr. Mercer, I think you missed the points previously stated.  The article has several empirical studies as references.  I also think Davidson's questions are legit. DPetersontalk 14:48, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, guys. I started by telling you about some things to read, one of which supports your view. But if you don't want to read the literature, you needn't. Personally i find it useful.Jean Mercer 21:23, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Dr. Mercer, I think you missed the points previously stated.  The article has several empirical studies connected with it.  Is there a particular reason you don't wish to respond to the questions asked of you?  DPetersontalk 21:29, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Certainly there's a particular reason. It's a total waste of everyone's time to do so-- time which you all could invest better in an extensive literature search, and time which I now plan to put into writing for publication and other professional obligations.Jean Mercer 22:03, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a simple yes or no question.  If you hold yourself out to be an "expert" in this area, then this is a relevant question DPetersontalk 22:38, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: refs

message: What is meant here by saying the treatment is "evidence-based"?  Can someone clarify this? Thanks. StokerAce 17:20, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See Craven & Lee (2006) for one example.  In addition, the citations provided are empirical studies in professional peer-reviewed journals. RalphLendertalk 18:01, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Let me rephrase that:  Can someone define "evidence-based" as used here? StokerAce 18:04, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

text:  Do you have this in mind or no: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence-based_medicine StokerAce 18:39, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Evidence-Based 

message: Substituted at 14:43, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment