Scott: I am aware of much of your work in the field which is why I expressed my thoughts as I did (to appeal directly to what I knew you believed, not to try to persuade you of something I thought you didn't believe).
You say that there is a difference between putting a therapy that is being widely used clinically (like FC or rebirthing or Therapeutic Touch) to the test and testing more questionable hypotheses with less widespread use. Regarding the widespread use criteria: I recently viewed again the Prisoners of Silence video on FC. There was a time when FC started in Australia when Douglas Biklen visited and brought it back to the US when there would have been a window of opportunity to put it to an empirical test before releasing it on a hopeful and credulous public. As one person who was victimized by false allegations of abuse pointed out, shouldn't there be as much testing of such practices before they are released as there is when a new drug comes on the market? But, instead, there was little or no empirical testing until many hopes had been raised and lives destroyed. As to the silliness of thinking that one experience with an animal will have a life-changing affect on attachment, how exactly does that differ from the concept of rebirthing which you suggest should be put to the test? Rebirthing also involved brief sessions that were supposed to have an effect on attachment. Before it became controversial with actual physical harm, I don't know how widespread it was but it was probably no more so than the programs today promoting contact with animals and nature as a way to overcome various psychological problems. I agree that the research design was flawed but I disagree that the hypothesis was silly on its face. Much sillier hypotheses have gone untested and eventually became popular, raised false hopes, wasted money and hurt people. I applaud attempts to test such questionable ideas before they get to that point. 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 -----Original Message----- From: Scott Lilienfeld [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2006 10:08 AM To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences Subject: Re: astonishing Psy.D. dissertation 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] --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [email protected] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
