Accredited, brand-named psychotherapies and the standard of evidence: A reply to Davidson

Description

Prof Davidson also trots out that old chestnut of McNally’s (1996 a & b) regarding EMDR to wit: “What is new is not effective and what is effective is not new”. This has been effectively rebutted by Perkins & Rouanzoin (2002) who convincingly, even for the most rabid of sceptics, demonstrated that McNally, in dismissing EMDR as just another variant of systematic desensitisation, failed to notice that, unlike EMDR, systematic desensitisation is not particularly helpful in the treatment of PTSD. Perkins & Rouanzoin also showed how McNally misreported data to support his contentions regarding EMDR whiles simultaneously excluding or ignoring Van Etten & Taylor’s (1998) meta-analysis. Van Etten & Taylor concluded that EMDR is not simply a variant of imaginal exposure, a conclusion which contradicts McNally’s argument but is omitted by him. [Excerpt]

Format

Journal

Language

English

Author(s)

Timothy Dunne
Derek Farrell

Original Work Citation

Dunne, T., & Farrell, D. (2009, March). Accredited, brand-named psychotherapies and the standard of evidence: A reply to Davidson. Clinical Psychology Forum, 195, 3-4

Collection

Citation

“Accredited, brand-named psychotherapies and the standard of evidence: A reply to Davidson,” Francine Shapiro Library, accessed October 24, 2020, https://emdria.omeka.net/items/show/20996.

Output Formats