Francine Shapiro Library: EMDR Bibliography

 Your Results - you searched for the keyword Orthodoxy 4 Results    

1. Hoffman, S. (2009). On science, orthodoxy, EMDR, and the AIP, H. Lipke, Invited response. Journal of EMDR Practice and Research, 3(2), 111. doi:10.1891/1933-3196.3.2.109.

Language: English

Format: Journal

Abstract:
In the letter to the editor titled “On Science, Orthodoxy, EMDR, and the AIP,” the writer criticizes the EMDRIA’s defi nition of eye movement desensitization and reprocessing (EMDR). This defi nition affects EMDR training requirements, EMDRIA continuing education credits, the programs selected for the annual conference, and the work of the Journal for EMDR Practice and Research. The defi nition was put into place in 2003 in order to set the professional standard for the community. It has been revised once and, like all policies, is subject to further revision based on new information.

Keywords: Adaptive Information Processing  AIP  Letter  Orthodoxy  Science  

2. Lipke, H. (2009). On science, orthodoxy, EMDR, and the AIP. Journal of EMDR Practice and Research, 3(2), 109-110. doi:10.1891/1933-3196.3.2.109.

Language: English

Format: Journal

Abstract:
Comments on the book by Francine Shapiro (see record 2001-05049-000). I was fortunate to observe Shapiro’s concern for the principles of science in the development of eye movement desensitization and reprocessing (EMDR). She insisted that EMDR be called experimental until after there was supportive peer-reviewed literature, limited training to mental health professionals, and strongly encouraged research. EMDRIA and its peer-reviewed journal have generally continued in this admirable direction. However, when an association is organized around a specific method of treatment rather than a problem area or a more general philosophy of approach, the question of orthodoxy must be addressed. At its best, orthodoxy ensures that practice is consistent with what has been demonstrated to be worthwhile, and all benefit from adherence. Also, there are aspects of the adaptive information processing (AIP), as it is described in the text, that are debatable and some that appear even self-contradictory. One example is Shapiro’s claim that the AIP is a “psychophysiological” model while also denying that enough is known about the details of psychophysiology to offer an explicit model. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2009 APA, all rights reserved)

Keywords: Adaptive Information Processing  AIP  

3. Maxfield, L. (2009). On science, orthodoxy, EMDR, and the AIP, H. Lipke, Response from the editor. Journal of EMDR Practice and Research, 3(2), 109-112. doi:10.1891/1933-3196.3.2.109.

Language: English

Format: Journal

Abstract:
The Journal ’s instructions to authors are located inside the back cover of every issue. The relevant passage stated, “Articles that recommend a clinical approach that differs from EMDR’s standard protocol or its foundational Adaptive Information Processing model (Shapiro, 2001) should explain these differences.”The purpose of this instruction was to encourage clarity rather than conformity. It is important for Journal readers, some of whom have not been trained in this method, to know whether the techniques described are standard for eye movement desensitization and reprocessing (EMDR) or variations on the protocol. For example, the reader of an article describing a technique that combines EMDR with aspects of another psychotherapy approach such as hypnosis could assume that hypnotic inductions were part of standard EMDR unless it was stated clearly which elements were adapted from that method. The request that authors also clarify points of divergence from the adaptive information-processing (AIP) model was similarly intended to generate clarity. It is consistent with the recognition that a common platform for discussion is needed, even if that platform is imperfect. It is also consistent with Shapiro’s teaching of the AIP model as a clinical heuristic that is subject to revision in the face of new data or more compelling models. Rather than thwarting discussion, the request that authors explain points of disagreement was designed to promote deeper consideration of the mechanisms and models underlying EMDR. In response to Dr. Lipke’s letter, the Journal ’s Editorial Board engaged in a thorough review process to examine the value of this instruction and invited responses (see letters above) from Dr. Shapiro and the EMDRIA’s Board of Directors to further illuminate the process. The Editorial Board has a diverse membership, and there were divergent opinions, including some disagreements with the following response. It was decided to modify the identified statement so that it now reads, “Articles that recommend a clinical approach that differs from EMDR’s standard protocol or Shapiro’s (2001) Adaptive Information Processing model should discuss these differences.”

Keywords: Adaptive Information Processing  AIP  Letter  Orthodoxy  Science  

4. Shapiro, F. (2009). On science, orthodoxy, EMDR, and the AIP, H. Lipke, invited response. Journal of EMDR Practice and Research, 3(2), 110-111. doi:10.1891/1933-3196.3.2.109.

Language: English

Format: Journal

Abstract:
Thank you for the invitation to respond to Dr. Lipke’s letter. I will confine myself to statements regarding the adaptive information processing (AIP) model and my text. However, I would like to begin by stating that I applaud the free exchange of ideas regarding the model. I formulated the principles in 1990 because the effects I was observing with “EMD” could not be explained by my original behavioral orientation. These AIP principles were pivotal in the development of the current procedures and protocols of eye movement desensitization and reprocessing (EMDR), moving it from a technique to a psychotherapy approach, offering a comprehensive view of the clinical picture and successful treatment applications. [Excerpt]

Keywords: Adaptive Information Processing  AIP  Letter  Orthodoxy  Science