.jpg)
Researchers Anke Ehlers, Jonathon Bisson, David Clark, Mark Creamer, Steven Pilling, David Richards, Paula Schnurr, Stuart Turner, and William Yule have finally done it! They slayed the “dodo.” Not the real bird of course–that beast has been extinct since the mid to late 17th century but rather the “dodo bird” conjecture first articulated by Saul Rozenzweig, Ph.D. in 1936. The idea that all treatment approaches work about equally well has dogged the field–and driven proponents of “specific treatments for specific disorders” positively mad. In a soon to be published article in Clinical Psychology Review, the authors claim that bias, overgeneralization, lack of transparency, and poor judgement account for the finding that “all therapeutic approaches work equally well for people with a diagnosis of PTSD” reported in a meta-analysis by Benish, Imel, & Wampold (2008).
I guess this means that a public admission by me, Wampold, and other common factors researchers is in order…or maybe not! Right now, we are writing a response to the article. All I can say at this point is, “unbelievable!” As soon as it becomes available, you’ll find it right here on this blog. I’ll be drawing inspiration from Saul Rosenzweig who passed away in 2004. It was such an honor to meet him. Still working at 96 years of age.
3 responses to “DODO BIRD HYPOTHESIS PROVEN FALSE! Study of PTSD finally proves Wampold, Miller, and other "common factor" proponents wrong”
I can’t wait to see the article. I’m wanting to see how one article will impact the under-reviewed literature of 40 years that the dodo-bird effect is real. Doesn’t change what we’re doing. Looking forward to the article and your response.
We are always in the business and the process of searching for answers WITH and FOR the CLIENT. They (answers) lie within the client (who shows them and tells them and does them right in front of us) and with the practitioner working with the client. Working WITH the CLIENT to uncover processes that ARE going on – that the client IS USING – whether consciously or unconsciously – outside of awareness or within awareness – OURS AND THEIRS.
What we need to be more aware of (and CONSTANTLY REMIND OURSELVES) is that it is not so much about the technic but the client and how they are responding and reacting to situations (AND WHAT WE ARE DOING WITH THEM), “past – present – or future”. Don’t we already know that we need to Remember, it is their brain – it does get trained to respond and react from the get go.
We can do so many things to impact the direction and the strategies utilized and in play. If we over-focus on a stringent protocol – my belief – it may very well be to the detriment of the client’s welfare. That’s not to say we shouldn’t have a protocol but that the client is much more important in the mix of what we do than the protocol. Makes sense doesn’t it?
We are always in the business and the process of searching for answers WITH and FOR the CLIENT. They (answers) lie within the client (who shows them and tells them and does them right in front of us) and with the practitioner working with the client. Working WITH the CLIENT to uncover processes that ARE going on – that the client IS USING – whether consciously or unconsciously – outside of awareness or within awareness – OURS AND THEIRS.
What we need to be more aware of (and CONSTANTLY REMIND OURSELVES) is that it is not so much about the technic but the client and how they are responding and reacting to situations (AND WHAT WE ARE DOING WITH THEM), “past – present – or future”. Don’t we already know that we need to Remember, it is their brain – it does get trained to respond and react from the get go.
We can do so many things to impact the direction and the strategies utilized and in play. If we over-focus on a stringent protocol – my belief – it may very well be to the detriment of the client’s welfare. That’s not to say we shouldn’t have a protocol but that the client is much more important in the mix of what we do than the protocol. Makes sense doesn’t it?