Eye movement desensitization and reprocessing: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 12:14, 12 February 2025

Revision as of 12:17, 12 February 2025

Line 69:

Some scholars have criticized Francine Shapiro for repeatedly increasing the length and expense of training and certification, allegedly in response to the results of controlled trials that cast doubt on EMDR's efficacy.<ref name="1999 Skeptic">{{cite journal|title=Eye Movement Magic: Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing|journal=Skeptic|volume=7|issue=4|year=1999| vauthors = Rosen GM, Mcnally RJ, Lilienfeld SO | author-link3=Scott Lilienfeld | url=http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/14-05-21/#feature}}</ref><ref name="Herbert">{{cite journal | vauthors = Herbert JD, Lilienfeld SO, Lohr JM, Montgomery RW, O'Donohue WT, Rosen GM, Tolin DF | title = Science and pseudoscience in the development of eye movement desensitization and reprocessing: implications for clinical psychology | journal = Clinical Psychology Review | volume = 20 | issue = 8 | pages = 945–971 | date = November 2000 | pmid = 11098395 | doi = 10.1016/s0272-7358(99)00017-3 | s2cid = 14519988 }}</ref> This included requiring the completion of an EMDR training program in order to be qualified to administer EMDR properly after researchers using the initial written instructions found no difference between no-eye-movement control groups and EMDR-as-written experimental groups. Further changes in training requirements and/or the definition of EMDR included requiring level II training when researchers with level I training still found no difference between eye-movement experimental groups and no-eye-movement controls and deeming "alternate forms of bilateral stimulation" (such as finger-tapping) as variants of EMDR by the time a study found no difference between EMDR and a finger-tapping control group.<ref name="1999 Skeptic" /> Such changes in definition and training for EMDR have been described as "ad hoc moves [made] when confronted by embarrassing data".<ref name ="McNally2003">{{cite journal | vauthors = McNally RJ |title=The demise of pseudoscience |journal=The Scientific Review of Mental Health Practice |year=2003 |volume=2 |issue=2 |pages=97–101 |url=https://www.srmhp.org/0202/pseudoscience.html |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20050211230751/https://www.srmhp.org/0202/pseudoscience.html |archive-date=2005-02-11 }}</ref>

EMDR adds a number of non-scientifictechniques practicesthat do not appear to [[exposurecontribute to therapeutic effectiveness, e.g., bilateral therapy]]stimulation.<ref name="non">{{cite book |page=292 |vauthors= Lohr JM, Gist R, Deacon B, Devilly GJ, Varker T |chapter=Chapter 10: Science- and Non-Science-Based Treatments for Trauma-Related Stress Disorders |publisher=Routledge |veditors=Lilienfeld SO, Lynn SJ, Lohr JM |title=Science and Pseudoscience in Clinical Psychology |edition=2nd |year=2015 |isbn=9781462517893|quote="...eye movements and other bilateral stimulation techniques appear to be unnecessary and do not uniquely contribute to clinical outcomes. The characteristic procedural feature of EMDR appears therapeutically inert, and the other aspects of this treatment (e.g., imaginal exposure, cognitive reappraisal, in vivo exposure) overlap substantially with those of exposure-based treatments for PTSD...EMDR offers few, if any, demonstrable advantages over competing evidence-based psychological treatments. Moreover, its theoretical model and purported primary active therapeutic ingredient are not scientifically supported."}}</ref> EMDR is classified as one of the "power therapies" alongside [[thought field therapy]], [[Emotional Freedom Techniques]] and others{{snd}}so called because these therapies are marketed as being superior to established therapies which preceded them.<ref name=ros2012>{{cite book |vauthors=Rosquist J |isbn=9781136915772 |publisher=Routledge |year=2012 |title=Exposure Treatments for Anxiety Disorders: A Practitioner's Guide to Concepts, Methods, and Evidence-Based Practice |page=92}}</ref>

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]]: