by Scott Hoye on January 18th, 2010 § 0
I have created several new blog posts
A review of clinical and experimental hypnosis and creativity.
A review of Ernest Rossi’s latest title.
A constructivist take on Tommy Lee Jones’ film, The Three Burials of Melquiades Estrada
And a review of the literature on Project Head Start and Social and Emotional Learning
Just click on the links and have a look.–Scott
by Scott Hoye on December 6th, 2009 § 0
by Scott Hoye on October 15th, 2009 § 2
A link to an article in Inside Higher Ed on the new APA Style Guide.
by Scott Hoye on October 4th, 2009 § 0
A recent Newsweek article claimins that psychologists are unscientific, and cling tenaciously to their theories and interventions of choice out of personal preference:
http://www.newsweek.com/id/216506
Sharon Begely quotes one study in the journal Perspectives of Psychological Science, that states we clinicians, “use the interventions for which there is the strongest evidence of efficacy” and “give more weight to their personal experiences than to science.” She asserts that CBT is, hands down, the only effective form of psychotherapy.
Now I generally think that many of us do tend to cling tenaciously to our chosen orientations. And there must also besome credence to efficacy studies. But the brevity of Begely’s article, and the use of one study, or analysis does not go to the heart of the matter. Are randomized control trials (RCT) the best way to study what psychotherapy does?
Miller, Duncan & Hubble’s Escape From Babel produces information that is contrary to this. Taking a Common Factors approach, the authors attest to analysis of studies showing that the single biggest factor, 40%, contributing to positive psychotherapy outcomes is what the client brings, or external, client related factors (life situation, resources, etc) (1997). Therapeutic orientation contributes a tiny 15% to to the mix. The use of meta analyses of psychotherapy, starting with Rosenweig in the 1930s, produces results that show that psychotherapy works, and that there is little difference between results for orientation (Wampold, 2001).
Holding these two facts in mind, one must question the entire foundations of current outcome research. We must not forget, as scientists and practitioners, that information must not become dogma. We should also consider that the nature of inquiry and healing in talking therapies is not altogether the same as those in medical therapies. They are apples and oranges, and we must look at them differently. So we need a different way of measuring them. A possible route to that is being explored by some clinicians. These voices need to be heard, not drowned out by HMOs touting RCTs merely to limit the use of psychotherapy, based solely on greed.
Which brings us back to Begely’s article. How can we compete with Newsweek or other pedestrian publications, and get the word out regarding our scientific and clinical work? I think that letters to the editor regarding slipshod, scientific writing is in order for Ms. Begely. Lack of fact checking should not be permitted in journalism, especially when it comes to informing the public about our work. The public already holds science as being infallible, and is uninformed as to the nature of debate even regarding older, Newtonian models of science. Science journalists, especially in popular publications, should be held accountable
Referennces
Miller, S., Duncan, B.L., Hubble, M.A. (1997). Out of babel. New York: Norton
Wampold, B. (2001). The great psychotherapy debate. Mahwah, NJ:Erlbaum
