Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-10-07 Advocates for Children in Therapy

message: This page is related to disputes on the Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy and Advocates for Children in Therapy articles. I was asked to list my proposals in a clean environment. shotwell 21:58, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also for the disputes on the Bowlby and Candace Newmaker articles...unless those have been resolved, as they seem to have been. SamDavidson 18:23, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

message: ===Shotwell's point of view===
I propose that the following changes be made:
*Attribute assertions regarding efficacy to Hughes and Becker-Weidman (and whoever else has made these assertions in a reliable source)
*Attribute assertions regarding evidential basis to Becker-Weidman and Hughes (and whoever else has made them)
*Attribute assertions concerning compliance with therapeutic guidelines to Becker-Weidman. (Has Hughes made this assertion?)
*Add criticism of the Becker-Weidman study (found here).
*Change "grounded in the works of Bowlby" -- either attribute the claim to Hughes and Becker-Weidman, or change it to "motivated by the works of Bowlby". I think that "motivated by..." sounds better, but this is a matter of taste. 
====Basis for changes====
*We should attribute contentious claims per WP:NPOV. 
*The Child Maltreatment reply to Becker-Weidman concludes:
::
*No independent source has verified that DDP is compliant with therapeutic guidelines. We can't state this as encyclopedic fact and therefore must attribute the claims to whoever said them. 
*The Becker-Weidman study is the only peer-reviewed study concerning DDP. The article explains this study at length without offering some counter balance. Some slight criticism of the study can be found in the Child Maltreatment link above. 
*"Grounded in the works of Bowlby" would imply that DDP is theoretically sound. This phrasing is not neutral. It'd be better to note that the two developers of DDP were strongly influenced by Bowlby's theory. 
I have a few comments to these "basis for changes."
#There are two peer reviewed pubs and this clearly supports the statement that there is an evidence-based for the treatment.  Evidence means some verifiable material or facts and material from a peer-reviewed publication clearly meets that standard: it is verifiable, factual, and has been determined by blind independent review to be accurate and appropriate for distribution in the professional literature.  The statement is veriable and true.  As stated below, there is not requirement that one can only say "evidence-based" if there is an independent treatment review panel...however, blinded peer peer reivew probably exceeds that criteria in that it is a blind review.
#There is material supporting that Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy meets the standards of various professional organizations.  For example, the Child Maltreatment letter by the authors of the position paper describe the approach as not being coercive.
#The treatment is based on Attachment theory and is, therefore, grounded in Attachment theory.  
SamDavidson 18:23, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy]]

message: I propose that the following changes be made:
*Attribute assertions regarding efficacy to Hughes and Becker-Weidman (and whoever else has made these assertions in a reliable source)
*Attribute assertions regarding evidential basis to Becker-Weidman and Hughes (and whoever else has made them)
*Attribute assertions concerning compliance with therapeutic guidelines to Becker-Weidman. (Has Hughes made this assertion?)
*Add criticism of the Becker-Weidman study (found here).
*Change "grounded in the works of Bowlby" -- either attribute the claim to Hughes and Becker-Weidman, or change it to "motivated by the works of Bowlby". I think that "motivated by..." sounds better, but this is a matter of taste. 
====Basis for changes====
*We should attribute contentious claims per WP:NPOV. 
*The Child Maltreatment reply to Becker-Weidman concludes:
::
*No independent source has verified that DDP is compliant with therapeutic guidelines. We can't state this as encyclopedic fact and therefore must attribute the claims to whoever said them. 
*The Becker-Weidman study is the only peer-reviewed study concerning DDP. The article explains this study at length without offering some counter balance. Some slight criticism of the study can be found in the Child Maltreatment link above. 
*"Grounded in the works of Bowlby" would imply that DDP is theoretically sound. This phrasing is not neutral. It'd be better to note that the two developers of DDP were strongly influenced by Bowlby's theory. 
I have a few comments to these "basis for changes."
#There are two peer reviewed pubs and this clearly supports the statement that there is an evidence-based for the treatment.  Evidence means some verifiable material or facts and material from a peer-reviewed publication clearly meets that standard: it is verifiable, factual, and has been determined by blind independent review to be accurate and appropriate for distribution in the professional literature.  The statement is veriable and true.  As stated below, there is not requirement that one can only say "evidence-based" if there is an independent treatment review panel...however, blinded peer peer reivew probably exceeds that criteria in that it is a blind review.
#There is material supporting that Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy meets the standards of various professional organizations.  For example, the Child Maltreatment letter by the authors of the position paper describe the approach as not being coercive.
#The treatment is based on Attachment theory and is, therefore, grounded in Attachment theory.  
SamDavidson 18:23, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Shotwell's point of view

message: *We should attribute contentious claims per WP:NPOV. 
*The Child Maltreatment reply to Becker-Weidman concludes:
::
*No independent source has verified that DDP is compliant with therapeutic guidelines. We can't state this as encyclopedic fact and therefore must attribute the claims to whoever said them. 
*The Becker-Weidman study is the only peer-reviewed study concerning DDP. The article explains this study at length without offering some counter balance. Some slight criticism of the study can be found in the Child Maltreatment link above. 
*"Grounded in the works of Bowlby" would imply that DDP is theoretically sound. This phrasing is not neutral. It'd be better to note that the two developers of DDP were strongly influenced by Bowlby's theory. 
I have a few comments to these "basis for changes."
#There are two peer reviewed pubs and this clearly supports the statement that there is an evidence-based for the treatment.  Evidence means some verifiable material or facts and material from a peer-reviewed publication clearly meets that standard: it is verifiable, factual, and has been determined by blind independent review to be accurate and appropriate for distribution in the professional literature.  The statement is veriable and true.  As stated below, there is not requirement that one can only say "evidence-based" if there is an independent treatment review panel...however, blinded peer peer reivew probably exceeds that criteria in that it is a blind review.
#There is material supporting that Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy meets the standards of various professional organizations.  For example, the Child Maltreatment letter by the authors of the position paper describe the approach as not being coercive.
#The treatment is based on Attachment theory and is, therefore, grounded in Attachment theory.  
SamDavidson 18:23, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Basis for changes

message: I see you point now and continue to disagree for the reasons extensively outlined on the talk pages, which include, but are not limited to the following points: 
*Well, there actually are two peer-reviewed studies regarding DDP, which supports the statements as written in the article.
*There are several sources that support the statement that Dyadic Developmetal Psychotherapy mets verious guidelines.
*The work is grounded in the works of Bowlby since that is the theory base for the treatment.
DPetersontalk 01:50, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: DPeterson's point of view

message: It appears that you do not have a problem with those pages...yes?  If so, maybe the Mediator can do something to indicate that the result of mediation is that those pages stay as written. RalphLendertalk 15:06, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be great...two down and two to go.  My reading of the pages is that there are no pending issues on these two pages.SamDavidson 18:11, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's wonderful. JohnsonRon 20:49, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't say that there are "no issues" with Newmaker, but I believe that everything can be resolved collaboratively. We've all agreed that the some portion of the removed information can be replaced if additional sources are found. shotwell 21:52, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Bowlby]] and [[Candace Newmaker]] articles