Perkins Byron R, Rouanzoin Curtis C
Psy.D., Irvine, CA 92612, USA.
J Clin Psychol. 2002 Jan;58(1):77-97. doi: 10.1002/jclp.1130.
EMDR is an active psychological treatment for PTSD that has received widely divergent reactions from the scientific and professional community. This article examines points of confusion in the published literature on EMDR, including the theoretical, empirical, and historical issues around EMDR and placebo effects, exposure procedures, the eye movement component, treatment fidelity issues, and outcome studies. It also examines historical information relevant to the scientific process and charges of "pseudoscience" regarding EMDR. We conclude that the confusion in the literature is due to (a) the lack of an empirically validated model capable of convincingly explaining the effects of the EMDR method, (b) inaccurate and selective reporting of research, (c) some poorly designed empirical studies, (d) inadequate treatment fidelity in some outcome research, and (e) multiple biased or inaccurate reviews by a relatively small group of authors. Reading the original research articles frequently helps to reduce the confusion arising from the research review literature.
眼动脱敏再处理疗法(EMDR)是一种针对创伤后应激障碍(PTSD)的积极心理治疗方法,在科学界和专业领域引发了广泛的不同反应。本文审视了已发表的关于EMDR的文献中的混淆点,包括围绕EMDR与安慰剂效应、暴露程序、眼动成分、治疗保真度问题及结果研究的理论、实证和历史问题。它还审视了与科学过程相关的历史信息以及关于EMDR的“伪科学”指控。我们得出结论,文献中的混淆是由于:(a)缺乏一个经过实证验证、能够令人信服地解释EMDR方法效果的模型;(b)对研究的不准确和选择性报告;(c)一些设计不佳的实证研究;(d)一些结果研究中治疗保真度不足;以及(e)相对少数作者进行的多次有偏见或不准确的综述。经常阅读原始研究文章有助于减少因研究综述文献而产生的混淆。