Although evidence-based practice is certainly a nice ideal, it rarely occurs in most of the practices that try to follow that ideal. The reason is that all the evidence is not available. There have been many discussions of the "file-drawer" problem and small studies with lack of power on this list, but there are many other reasons such as poor study design and cherry-picking of dependent measures, most of which seem to be motivated by various biases, conscious, unconscious (is there evidence for the unconscious?) and commercial/economic. A good review of these things can be found in Ben Goldacre's books, "Bad Science" and "Bad Pharma". Goldacre should not be accused of being on the "evidence based bandwagon", but many who use bad evidence unthinkingly or deviously to promote certain treatments might be so accused.
Bill Scott >>> "Mike Palij" 04/12/13 8:59 AM >>> 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=13058.902daf6855267276c83a639cbb25165c&n=T&l=tips&o=24970 or send a blank email to leave-24970-13058.902daf6855267276c83a639cbb251...@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=24975 or send a blank email to leave-24975-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
