This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Eye movement desensitization and reprocessing article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
Archives:
1,
2,
3,
4,
5,
6,
7,
8,
9,
10Auto-archiving period: 30 days
![]() |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to
pseudoscience and
fringe science, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
![]() | The contents of the Bilateral stimulation page were merged into Eye movement desensitization and reprocessing. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In this section, there should be clarification of the data used in the citation research contradicting the efficacy of EMDR. General statements or summaries limit the understanding of the criticism or validity of EMDR. What/where/how is the exact disagreement explained.
Training
Shapiro was criticized 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.[15][16] 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.[15] Such changes in definition and training for EMDR have been described as "ad hoc moves [made] when confronted by embarrassing data".[17] 91.217.105.54 ( talk) 21:56, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
@ Bon courage, you've reverted several people who've said that evidence has been gathered in the last 16 years, even though there are multiple sources in the article that show that. Can we get consensus that evidence has been gathered in the last 16 years and therefore the 2008 point needs to be removed the summary? Tom B ( talk) 15:50, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
I've just added the 2023 Cochrane review by Caro et al., doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD013361.pub2, they found, "The evidence base for the effectiveness of other psychotherapeutic interventions for sexually abused children and adolescents is limited, particularly in relation to… EMDR." More research is needed to establish the effectiveness of EMDR in this context. -- Notgain ( talk) 02:53, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
ScienceFlyer ( talk) 18:14, 21 May 2024 (UTC)The current study found no significant difference between EMDR and other psychological treatments.
Needs better referencing for such a broad claim regarding the views of an entire body, two sources are 20+ years old, and one recent citation is based on an online survey of 20 psychologists from turkey and bosnia, despite most of the article's contents discussing and/or referencing those working in america or western europe. Transgenderoriole ( talk) 22:55, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
I'm not sure leaning heavily on the mcnally sources is enough either to verify the thought of the professional psychological community but I think removing those 3 current in line citations and updating them (i can't edit as page is restricted) should be fairly agreeable. In addition, the lead does mention disagreements between organisations/bodies regarding the effectiveness but only touches on critique of the actual method being untestable. While the lead does paint a mixed picture, I think the specific claim that EMDR is controversial within the psychological community (again, the community where?, government bodies or independent organisations/solo campaigners?) is vague and unecessarily generalising of both the practice and the critiques of various aspects of it (not to mention that EMDR practitioners are members of the professional psychological community too and require accreditation beforehand). It would be much more beneficial if the specifics of the controversy were explored as 'EMDR' and 'untestable methods that are part of EMDR' are not the same, and EMDR treatment plans/methods are not homogeneous across practioners. Transgenderoriole ( talk) 11:48, 12 May 2024 (UTC)