Content deleted Content added
Markworthen (talk | contribs) Revision based on Talk page discussion. Please do NOT revert or make substantial edits without discussing on the Talk page first. |
Rescuing orphaned refs ("ps-in" from rev 1270879638; "ps-in_promotion" from rev 1270879638) |
||
Line 68:
Bilateral stimulation is a generalization of the left and right repetitive eye movement technique first used by Shapiro. Alternative stimuli include auditory stimuli that alternate between left and right speakers or headphones and physical stimuli such as tapping of the therapist's hands or tapping devices.<ref name="Rodenburg2009">{{cite journal | vauthors = Rodenburg R, Benjamin A, de Roos C, Meijer AM, Stams GJ | title = Efficacy of EMDR in children: a meta-analysis | journal = Clinical Psychology Review | volume = 29 | issue = 7 | pages = 599–606 | date = November 2009 | pmid = 19616353 | doi = 10.1016/j.cpr.2009.06.008 }}</ref>
Most meta-analyses have found that the inclusion of bilateral eye-movements within EMDR makes little or no difference to its effect.<ref name=
==Pseudoscience==
EMDR has been characterized as [[pseudoscience]], because the underlying theory and primary therapeutic mechanism are [[Falsifiability|unfalsifiable]] and non-scientific. EMDR's founder and other practitioners have used [[Pseudoscience#Falsifiability|untestable hypotheses]] to explain studies which show no effect.<ref name=ps-in_promotion>{{cite book |chapter=Chapter 4: Pseudoscience in Treating Adults Who Experienced Trauma |title=Science and Pseudoscience in Social Work Practice |vauthors=Thyer BA, Pignotti MG |year=2015 |publisher=Springer |page=221 |doi=10.1891/9780826177698.0004 |isbn=9780826177681|quote=Nevertheless, to date, given that there is no evidence that anything unique to EMDR is responsible for the positive outcomes in comparing it to no treatment and the florid manner in which it has been marketed, we are including it in this book... Another way in which EMDR qualifies as a pseudoscience is the manner in which it was developed and marketed... EMDR proponents have come up with ad hoc hypotheses to explain away unfavorable results that do not support its theory, which is one of the hallmark indicators of a pseudoscience... This type of post hoc explanation renders her theory unfalsifiable and thus places it outside the realm of science, because to qualify as scientific, a theory must be falsifiable.}}</ref> The results of the therapy are non-specific, especially if directed eye movements are irrelevant to the results. When these movements are removed, what remains is a broadly therapeutic interaction and deceptive marketing.<ref name="Herbert" /><ref name=Devilly2002>{{cite journal | vauthors = Devilly G |title=Eye movement desensitization and reprocessing: a chronology of its development and scientific standing |journal=The Scientific Review of Mental Health Practice |date=2002 |volume=1 |issue=2 |pages=132|url=http://devilly.org/Publications/EMDR-review.pdf}}</ref> According to neurologist [[Steven Novella]]:
{{blockquote|[T]he false specificity of these treatments is a massive clinical distraction. Time and effort are wasted clinically in studying, perfecting, and using these methods, rather than focusing on the components of the interaction that actually work.<ref name = "SBM" >{{cite web | vauthors = Novella S | author-link = Steven Novella |title=EMDR and Acupuncture – Selling Non-specific Effects |url=https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/emdr-and-acupuncture-selling-non-specific-effects/ |department=Science Based Medicine |publisher=Society for SBM |date=March 30, 2011 |access-date=12 July 2020}}</ref>}}
| |||