Apparently TIPS is no longer the place where professionals can have an open discussion of ideas without being criticized. I have used up my 3rd comment for the day. Perhaps it'll be a much longer time, if ever, before there will be another one.
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=24972 or send a blank email to leave-24972-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
