Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeWaters
than no other therapies? I'll bet I can show that is wrong.
|
I think we all know that in our field it is possible, easy even, to comb the research out there and find things that will justify just about any position. We all also know that despite what we were taught in research method classes, people do research intent on finding things, and voila they do.
The literature on efficacy of therapy outcomes is full of disagreement and debate. EST and EBP folks put a lot of money into justifying their position and ultimately hope to change policies so that we all end up with tx manuals and protocols based on DSM diagnoses. The other side argues that it's all bunk, that we're identifying specific ingredients responsible for change that just don't hold up in the final analysis. That's before we even get to what I believe is one of the biggest questions we don't like to deal with in our field--and that is, what do we mean when we say a treatment works?
If you want to read an interesting book, pick up Wampold's The Great Psychotherapy Debate. THere's plenty others out there, but he tears apart the outcomes research and shows convincing meta-analytic results.
Then go and read the responses to Wampold, and his critiques.
Then decide for yourself. But at least notice that there is hardly anything in our fields upon which we universally agree, or which we ratify as 'Truth.'
Which is all the more reason to critically examine why we do what we do, and know the costs/benefits, implications of our practices. The responsibility to help other people is a huge one, an honorable one (most times), and bears IMO significant weight to not gloss over the difficult questions.
I'm off to watch the game. Fascinating discussion, I loved it. It would be fun to get us all together sometime for lunch.