Frankly Mike I don't appreciate the use of or need for terms like "bizarre" and "perverse". That's uncalled for. I'm making the observation that the term "evidence-based" is being bandied about without much thought as to what it truly means. I appreciate your links below and I'll check them out. I'm sure I'm not the only one who could benefit from learning more about the history of the term. My concern is that it is being used irresponsibly. For example, people who advocate the concept of "learning styles" might state that it is an "evidence-based technique" in order to appear more credible. We know, however, that the evidence for the concept of "learning styles" is very weak.
I'm sorry I haven't done as much reading as you obviously have done. Michael A. Britt, Ph.D. [email protected] http://www.ThePsychFiles.com Twitter: mbritt On Apr 12, 2013, at 9:57 AM, Mike Palij <[email protected]> wrote: > I find what you say below strange and bordering on the bizarre. > Scott Lilienfeld probably should chime in if he has the time > but in the meantime I suggest that one check out the Cochrane > Collaboration website for background on "evidence based" methods > See: > www.cochrane.org > and the Campbell Collaboration: > http://www.campbellcollaboration.org/ > > Members of APS should take a look at the recent issue of Psychological > Science in the Public Interest for an article by Foa, Gillihan, & Bryant > on evidence-based treatments for PTSD; see: > http://psi.sagepub.com/content/14/2/65.full > NOTE: You'll have to sign in with your APS ID number. > > I find the phrase "evidence based bandwagon" perverse. And if you > have to ask where did it come from suggests that you have a whole > lot reading to do, starting with the establishment of experimental medicine > back at the start of the 20th century. > > -Mike Palij > New York University > [email protected] > > P.S. Mantra? PsycInfo is your friend. Pubmed.gov is your friend. > Even scholar.google.com is your friend. Search and you will find. > > > ------- Original Message -------- > On Fri, 12 Apr 2013 06:37:38 -0700, Michael Britt wrote: > Not long ago I interviewed a psychoanalyst/author about the concepts of > transference, countertransference and dream interpretation and one blog > commenter almost right away insisted that psychoanalysis was not "evidence > based". What struck me about the comment (and which I'm thinking of focusing > on > in an upcoming episode), is the knee-jerk reaction of "Well, it has to be > evidence-based!" It's almost become a mantra. > > Recently we've all become even more focused of the need to strengthen our > research techniques, but we all know that all our approaches have their > strengths and weaknesses. We know that evidence "points toward a conclusion" > and the more evidence that so the better. So I'm wondering: when does any > technique get the "evidence-based" stamp of approval? Certainly, some of our > techniques have a strong base of evidence in support of their effectiveness > (say, systematic desensitization for example) but what does it take to get the > evidence-based "badge"? For that matter, where did the term come from? > > Also, I'm wondering if there aren't politics involved here. It would be > interesting if so-called "evidence-based" techniques also happen to be the > short-term, less expensive ones that also happen to be covered by > insurance.... > > Feedback welcome. > > --- > You are currently subscribed to tips as: [email protected]. > To unsubscribe click here: > http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13405.0125141592fa9ededc665c55d9958f69&n=T&l=tips&o=24970 > or send a blank email to > leave-24970-13405.0125141592fa9ededc665c55d9958...@fsulist.frostburg.edu --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [email protected]. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=24971 or send a blank email to leave-24971-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
