Rick: I agree with much of what you say, especially in your concluding
sentence. In fact, the journal I edit (Scientific Review of Mental
Health Practice) is devoted explicitly to distinguishing scientific from
nonscientific methods, and we routinely publish literature reviews and
empirical investigations of novel, still unsubstantiated, and
controversial methods, even those that seem bizarre or implausible on
their face. So we are in full agreement there.
But there's a world of difference between (a) putting a therapy that is
being widely used clinically, such as facilitated communication,
rebirthing, or Therapeutic Touch, to an empirical test (which I firmly
and strongly support) and (b) testing a questionable hypothesis (namely,
that witnessing the birth of an animal during a single videotaped
interaction can ameliorate the symptoms of children with severe and
lasting attachment problems) using a research design that is flawed
(e.g., an independent variable that almost surely exerts multiple and
perhaps even opposing effects within and between subjects, a group of
children diagnosed with a condition that is almost the most poorly
validated in the DSM and that studies indicate is highly heterogeneous
in its symptom picture, the selection of a sample that is probably among
the least likely to show the predicted effects, the confound between
witnessing an animal's birth and witnessing direct interaction of that
animal with its children, and so on).
You are most certainly correct that many people are using
animal-assisted therapy programs and I enthusiastically support efforts
to test these programs empirically (indeed, I've written on the topic of
animal-assisted therapy myself). The study in question was not designed
to test such a program. If hundreds of therapists around the country
were running around treating children's severe attachment problems by
showing them the births of goats and other animals, then your point
would apply - and we would be in full agreement. My view then would be
"Although I personally find this treatment tp be rather dubious, lots of
therapists are using it. Therefore, for both social and scientific
reasons, it's important for us to keep an open mind and subject it to
empirical examination." Instead, this study was designed to test the
author's hypothesis, derived from his own conjectures, that a single
brief videotaped presentation of an animal's birth can exert lasting
effects of adjustment among children who have severe and lasting
adjustment problems. It was not designed to test a treatment that is
currently being used by anyone.
Reasonable people can hold differing points of view as whether this is
an interesting, important, or reasonable research hypothesis to test. As
you can tell, my view is in the negative.
Either way, I believe that a central part of training our students to be
good researchers lies not merely in the art and science of executing a
study correctly. It also lies in choosing good and important research
questions. I have long believed that this is one of the areas in which
our field perpetually falls short in training students. And I also
believe that it is one of the major factors distinguishing good from bad
researchers. Good researchers, I maintain, have a knack for "sniffing"
out research questions that are likely to bear fruit.
...Scott
Rick Froman wrote:
Scott Lilienfeld wrote:
"(I also don't agree in principle that one can't judge at least some of
the merits of a research project by reading an Abstract, as a silly
research question is a silly research question regardless of how well or
carefully the study is executed, but that's another matter)."
I agree that this study had methodological flaws and was too limited to
fulfill the requirements of a doctoral dissertation. On the other hand,
many Psy.D. programs do not have a dissertation requirement at all and
many that do consider a detailed literature review to be a dissertation.
Without reading the dissertation, it is difficult to say how detailed
and developed the literature review may have been (or if, in this case,
there was even a "literature" to review). I applaud the attempt to test
an idea that has currency in the field without accompanying empirical
support. I wish I could persuade all of my undergrads and grads who seek
a career in counseling to have such a mindset of putting widely held
assumptions and unquestioned therapeutic approaches to an empirical
test.
I disagree that this is a silly research question on its face. Just
because goats are used, doesn't earn it the Golden Fleece (although I am
sure Senator Proxmire would have criticized the research had he still
been doing this and if it had received federal funds). Is it a silly
research question to put Healing Touch therapy to an empirical test?
What about Facilitated Communication? There are many programs today
using outdoor experiences and interactions with animals in a therapeutic
way. Should these therapies remain untested because it would seem silly
to test them? Remember, the results found no significant effect. How
likely would a study like this be published if it wasn't a dissertation?
Anecdotal evidence of positive effects are all over the place but since
such questions are seen as below serious research, no one takes a chance
at getting negative findings and the resulting difficulty in finding an
outlet for the research. If research articles such as this are seen as
silly on their face because they use goats, it is hypocritical of us to
criticize therapists for not empirically validating questionable
treatments. Serious scientists may have better things to do than test
the silly (and in some cases dangerous, wasteful and misguided) ideas
that are passing for therapy in some circles but I hope those we are
training to be counselors will develop the attitude of putting even
their most widely held and cherished beliefs to the test.
Rick
Dr. Rick Froman
Professor of Psychology
John Brown University
2000 W. University
Siloam Springs, AR 72761
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(479) 524-7295
http://www.jbu.edu/academics/sbs/faculty/rfroman.asp
<http://www.jbu.edu/academics/sbs/faculty/rfroman.asp>
________________________________
---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
Scott O. Lilienfeld, Ph.D.
Associate Professor
Department of Psychology, Room 206
Emory University
532 N. Kilgo Circle
Atlanta, Georgia 30322
(404) 727-1125 (phone)
(404) 727-0372 (FAX)
Home Page: http://www.emory.edu/PSYCH/Faculty/lilienfeld.html
The Scientific Review of Mental Health Practice:
www.srmhp.org
The Master in the Art of Living makes little distinction between his work and
his play, his labor and his leisure, his mind and his body, his education and
his recreation, his love and his intellectual passions. He hardly knows which
is which. He simply pursues his vision of excellence in whatever he does,
leaving others to decide whether he is working or playing. To him – he is
always doing both.
- Zen Buddhist text
(slightly modified)
---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: [email protected]
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
