Talk:Psychotherapy

Distinguishing between therapy, counseling, coaching and mentoring

Therapy is usually seen as being applied to mental health or diagnosable psychiatric issues. Counselling to non-psychiatric issues, but still things that might create emotional reactions. Coaching is aimed at a goal or achieving something. Mentoring is aimed at the personal progress of a person toward some sort of status, and overall personal achievement. -- I think I'd get good marks on the exam with this explanation, but I don't know if I could find the reference from the class any more.... 03:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fremte (talk • contribs)

Counseling, at least, has lost much of this distinction, although initially I think what much of you said was true and is true to certain forms of counseling, like vocational counseling and the like. Nowadays, licensed counselors are master level clinicians, often working with psychiatric issues such as in hospitals and agencies. In general, wikipedia needs to be updated to speak to this blurring of the lines. It seems to me that clinical psychologists often spend much of their time doing testing assessments, and psychaitrists are concerned with prescribing drugs. leontes (talk) 13:39, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

The only thing I have found so far is on this page: http://www.apa.org/governance/CPM/chapter10b.html , under the heading 2007 it talks about terminology, second last topic on the page. This does not quite do the job. Fremte (talk) 16:04, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Searching for and clicking on Counseling in wikipedia redirects to Psychotherapy - these can be very different modalities though they may exist side by side in the minds of some clients and practitioners. For example, Humanistic psychology lists them side by side in section 3. Contrast this with the article at Counseling psychology, which disitnguishes clearly between a similar distinction in Psychology betweencounseling and clinical psychology. But no such clarification occurs within or between the re-direct of counseling to psychotherapy.

There are similar confusions brought about by marriage guidance being re-directed to relationship counseling. These are dissimilar when one is provided in a religious context and that provided without religious affiliation. Likewise couples therapy re-directed to relationship counseling makes little sense without a distinction been drawn between therapy and counseling.

The existence of marriage guidance counsellor as an article about the Monty Python skit is funny but not informative.

On the counselling page, if you click on Marriage and Family counseling you are re-directed to family therapy - the same confusion between counseling and therapy.

Relationship coaching is not an article on its own but it is refered to in section 4 of life coaching. Dating coach used to redirects to personal coaching and these two are related but different and properly belong in the main coaching article. Intimacy coach/ing and marital coach/ing clearly will point to a potential boundary blurring between therapy, counseling and coaching. With coaching increasing its reach to intimate relationships and with the addition of say, marriage mentoring the possibilities for turf wars are limitless.

I have also started this discussion briefly on Talk:Relationship_counseling.--Ziji 23:53, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

These are good points that somehow need addressing so that the various related pages are consistent, organized to avoid overlap or ambiguity as much as possible, and in line with the most common usage and practice. There's also an issue with overlap between clinical psychology and this page, in terms of psychotherapy content. I've just added some images to here that were (and still are also) on that page. I guess this page needs a section on differences between psychotherapy and counseling/coaching etc EverSince 19:46, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello this is a very important issue. I think distinguishing the various types is imortant. Perhaps there is a good typology out there. I'll do some research on this. Devonian Strata 08:21, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Devonian - have you found a typology?-- Ziji  (talk)  12:12, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't Therapist redirect to Therapy rather than Psychotherapy? Usage of the term in the UK is certainly not confined to persons with any medical or scientific qualification Mighty Antar 01:28, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Body Psychotherapy

I added Body Psychotherapy to the list of main systems of psychotherapy in the article's introduction section, however, this was reverted by another editor who didn't appreciate this as being a major field. I can only point to that article which does in fact list a considerable number of subordinate schools. So I move that this main direction should be re-included in that list, especially as body psychotherapy otherwise would go completely unmentioned in this article, and that would be an omission which I don't see how can be justified. __meco 12:49, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Other considerable 'subordinate schools' being present in this article does not justify the addition of anything else - if you don't think the others belong, then remove them as you see fit. Do you have any references for Body Psychotherapy that might suggest it is a main school of thought in psychotherapy? JoeSmack ^Talk 13:04, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

References: you could start with Pierre Janet, move on to Wilhelm Reich and David Boadella, Ida Pauline Rolf and Jon Kabat-Zinn: . and then go on to the Body Psychotherapy article and take your pick - personally I would take Ron Kurtz and Gerda Boyesen but her page too needs improvement - english citations would help in research. The body psychotherapy page is in need of urgent attention, Rolf and Kabat Zinn were not included, some linked names do not link to an article on the named person eg Ron Kurtz. I have added the mind-body interventions template and put the body psychotherapy page in that template, but much more needs to be done to improve e.g. citations for one. Doing that will increase the authority of a major field position, with which I agree. My earlier coments about distinguishing between counselling and therapy etc also apply between body psychotherapies if you consider the list in the interventions template. Even within a well defined body orientated practice, there are divisions e.g. that in Hakomi between body centred, somatic pychotherapy and experiential psychotherapy. The European Association of Body Psychotherpay is an excellent source to build the case, as is the American Assoc

To widen the authority of the field I suggest going into Alice Miller's work for starters, eg her recent book '', wherein this quote: Ultimately the body will rebel. Even if it can be temporarily pacified with the help of drugs, cigarettes or medicine, it usually has the last word because it is quicker to see through self-deception than the mind. We may ignore or deride the messages of the body, but is rebellion demands to be heeded because its language is the authentic expression of our true selves and of the strength of our vitality.

For a radical bend in the story you could go back to Freud's interest in cocaine (which began on April 24, 1884 and his interest in the nasal reflex neurosis based relationship with Fleiss (who believed that the nose was the centre of all human illness). . I haven't the time to pursue this any further at the moment, but I will come back to it after I deal with the problems at pre- and peri-natal psychology where the body begins its journey

References

--Ziji 22:16, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it seems like this is all appropriate on the body psyschology page, and the discussion should primarily be held there and possibly moved there as the page is in need of expansion, it seems to be off topic on this page, as it goes into great detail. As I understand it, body psychology is not generally considered to be a main system of psychotherapy. I am still unclear how to add it to the specific schools and approaches part of the page. The person who does should focus on a short paragraph on what is it that makes body psychology different from the other approaches. I think possibly "embodied" work, that includes spiritual psychotherapy and other forms of transpersonal or embodied approaches might be an appropraite addition. leontes 05:09, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

There is a list of psychotherapies which I think is appropriate to mention Body psychotherapy and spiritual, etc. I think the big ones however are the only ones that should be touched on here, ones that spawned like a billion others - you don't want to go on and on about a specific model of a specific year of a kind of Mustang on Ford's article, you want that on it's own article (i.e. I agree with Leontes). You also might notice Ford's article has a link to list of Ford vehicles. :) JoeSmack ^Talk 06:11, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I will copy this across to body psychotherapy-- Ziji  (talk)  00:15, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I do agree with Leontes that Ziji's deep-dive into the specificities of the Body psychotheraputic field is more confusing than light-shedding on the issue of whether, or rather how, this system should be presented in this article. I find Leontes' suggestion that maybe a section with perceived like-minded schools could be described and related to more mainstream psychotherapeutic directions (does labeling thusly make sense?) would be a good idea. However, I do think that a mention in the introductory section as a main system of psychotherapy is warranted at least to the extent that Psychodynamics is afforded such prominent mention. I seem to have set off a commotion centering on that particular article that I think might have some bearing on the current article. Suffice to mention the professional bodies regulating the system of Body psychotherapy both in the US and in Europe, as well as professional journals, whereas nothing can be shown for as it comes to Psychodynamics. In fact, everything about Psychodynamics here seems vague to me and it appears to be a rather nondesprict umbrella term which is not clearly distinguisable from Psychoanalysis proper. __meco 21:06, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Psychodynamics, as I understand it, not withstanding the strange wikipedia article regarding it that is desperate need of attention, is an umbrella term for all systems of psychotherapy that ancestorial roots directly come from psychoanalysis. Very few practicioners actually use straight psychoanalysis Many current counselors and psychotherapists use psychodynamic techniques, including object relations, speaking about ones past in relation to the now and as such it is something that is appropriate to the main system of psychotherapy. It can be distinguished by other approaches like humanist, CBT and systems theory. Brief therapy doesn't really feel like it fits there, perhaps. Body Psychology doesn't as, even though it's established, like other forms of psychotherapy it remains on the fringes. Perhaps expressive therapy could be listed here, even though that a tad bit on the fringes, as body psychology could be seen an offshoot of dance/movement therapy, perhaps. I do agree that we need a reason why each mentioned systems is there. leontes 21:16, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Just because 'Psychodynamics shouldn't be mentioned and is' doesn't mean Body Psychotherapy should. Wikipedia doesn't play the relativism game, otherwise everything's inclusion or exclusion is just an association away. Please keep it to Body Psychotherapy's merits or demerits for if Body Psychotherapy stays or goes. (This all kind of sounds like I'm pissed or something, but I'm not, fyi :) ) JoeSmack ^Talk 21:32, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Having begun to peruse the web sites of the US and European associations of Body Psychotherapy respectively, I have at least found the following quotes from both web sites' introductory articles about Body Psychotherapy:

"...we consider that we hold a not-to-be-neglected position as one of the 10 major streams of psychotherapy today, with at least 20 sub-divisions." (US site, written 1997, the US association was established in 1996)

"Body-Psychotherapy is a distinct branch of psychotherapy, well within the main body of psychotherapy, which has a long history and a body of literature and knowledge based upon a sound theoretical position." (European site)

I am not writing this to press for inclusion as a major system, simply for reference when it comes to expanding the article. __meco 18:41, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Beware of self publications! 'We are great' style stuff, you know? ;) JoeSmack ^Talk 19:01, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Pruning condoned

User:Voice of All has removed more than 5,000 bytes of text and also done some rearranging of other text. I find this edit to constitute a significant improvement of the article. __meco 09:10, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

New Section - Analysis of Comments

The text [4] has been added and removed twice, by user Shrp2edgeswrd. As it stands, it clearly has POV issues, and the majority is unsourced (with the exception of the partial reference at the end). But in particular, it seems to consist of a commentary on the previous section of the article. In some ways I agree with the points raised, but obviously adding a contradictory commentary to the end isn't the way to resolve the problems. I think the "Client views and concerns" section has original research or at least un-sourced claims (and I tagged it as such a while back), and needs an overhaul. It needs to be referenced or deleted, and I suspect it's not going to stand up as NPOV and should go. Anyone fancy having a go at this? Cheers, Eve 21:33, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I think it was unnecessary to remove this text. I think it simply needs to be re-written and that that will take care of most of the objections raised. I have, by the way, added the {{weasel}} template to this whole section, and I do believe that quite a few statements should be removed if they don't become sourced very soon. In a way that is a petty, because I find much of it to be likely representations of actual positions. But in the primary interest of making a reliable encyclopedia we cannot have statements beginning with "experts say..." or "research has shown..." with no attribution of source. __meco 06:33, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Meco makes a good point. Statements need to have sources which meet the standard of being Wikipedia:Verifiability, which isn't necessarily a very high hurtle to overcome here. JohnsonRon 16:40, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I have some sources that add some support to this but don't have time right now to add - started an outline-ish edit of this section. I think the section should be retitiled - the material in it has important points, but are more general concerns regarding bad psychotherapy (to use a very general term). --Murmur74 01:53, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Removing "Client views and concerns"

I have removed the text below. It is largely unsourced opinions and original research, much of it sounding like propaganda. Some statements are outright false, such as "Most research suggests that almost as many people (50% as opposed to 65%) feel helped by sitting in a room talking to someone generally as do when sitting in a room talking to someone who is deliberately 'doing therapy'." Really? Most research says this? Anyway, I think this section should be flushed where it belongs, but I put it here in case anyone wants to try finding some credible sources and putting it back. Ash(talk) 15:24, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Dependency on therapist: I can't say for the other comments below, but it is blatantly apparent that clients often form dependencies. You just have to ask around for proof! A discussion on this ought to be included -- I imagine there are references to dependency in the literature - ?

==Client views and concerns== <P> {{Original research|section|date=March 2007}}<P> {{weasel}}<P> Therapy, as with other treatment, can at times have [[iatrogenic]] effects, where problems are caused via the treatment. {{Fact|date=June 2007}} Termed 'negative outcome' by Strupp and colleagues{{Fact|date=May 2007}}, one study found that therapists with a negative self-image, or [[introject]], who adhere closely to a manualized treatment are at greater risk for negative outcomes with the people they treat {{Fact|date=May 2007}}. <P> ====Closeness to the therapist==== <P> First, many clients experience very strong emotions towards their therapists. Sometimes, these are feelings of obsession, love, and/or sexual attraction (even where this goes against the client’s normal sexuality). This can happen to anyone, including clients who are in extremely happy, loving, stable relationships with their partners, and people who are not normally highly emotional. {{Fact|date=June 2007}} <P> Clients are not usually forewarned about this, but it is common. Some schools of therapy refer to it as 'transference' and believe it to be emotions that are "transferred" from another person in the client's life (for example, a parent). Other schools do not see it in this way. Some schools deliberately encourage these feelings because they are seen as a key to the client 'working through' emotional issues. <P> These emotions can be overpowering and have a huge effect upon the client's life. His or her other relationships can suffer. He or she can find it impossible to function normally and live for the hour per week that he or she spends with the therapist. Clients have been known to be so overwhelmed by such feelings that they experience panic attacks, breakdowns, severe depression and other traumatic effects, both during the therapy and after it has ended. The feelings can be brief but can also persist for years. {{Fact|date=May 2007}} <P> Therapists say that it is only in unusual cases that the feelings become that strong. They also say that staying in therapy is the best way to deal with them, and that 'working through' the feelings usually causes them to subside. But experts are now saying that it is much more common than the therapy world is prepared to admit (or indeed knows – some clients go through all that pain without telling their therapist). It is also a phenomenon which is not really understood, and if the feelings do become unmanageable, there is little or nothing in the therapist's training to help. {{Fact|date=June 2007}} <P> ====Dependency on therapist==== <P> Similarly, clients often become extremely dependent upon their therapist. Clients can literally feel unable to make simple decisions without talking things through with the therapist. Some clients find that life outside of the therapy room feels insignificant and meaningless. This can have a devastating and humiliating effect on the client’s personal, social and working life. Again, clients are not usually forewarned of this possibility, and little is known about how to prevent it or to curtail it when it happens. {{Fact|date=May 2007}} <P> The client’s handle on reality can be severely affected by therapy. Some forms can encourage clients to question themselves to such an extent that they can lose a clear sense of identity, self-belief and confidence in their own judgement. Many people believe that there is a brainwashing element to therapy, sometimes even resembling a cult, and that this can override clients' normal judgement and self-sufficiency. <P> Many clients, former clients, [[sociologist]]s and social commentators have warned that therapy can convince clients that their perfectly normal human feelings and behaviours are malfunctions – signs of mental ill health, instability or 'disordered personality'. Believing oneself to be ill or not functioning adequately can be extremely upsetting, and can even become a self-fulfilling prophecy. It also seems that therapy’s focus on the past, and/or negative experiences, and/or on the client’s own internal world can be most unhelpful for some clients, because it surrounds them in despair when what they need might be to put the past behind them, look at positives or focus outwards. <P> ====Effectiveness==== <P> Most research suggests that almost as many people (50% as opposed to 65%) feel helped by sitting in a room talking to someone generally as do when sitting in a room talking to someone who is deliberately 'doing therapy'. {{Fact|date=May 2007}}

DDP

I have removed Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy from this page. This little known therapy has been extensively advertised on Wiki as evidence based, sometimes the only evidence based treatment for a variety of disorders affecting attachment. (Theraplay, also little known and not evidence based has also been advertised in this way.) A range of attachment articles including attachment therapy are currently before ArbCom. In the course of ArbCom it has transpired that of the 6 users promoting DDP and Theraplay and controlling these pages, User:DPeterson, User:RalphLender, User:JonesRD, User:SamDavidson, User:JohnsonRon, and User:MarkWood, the latter four are definitely socks and have been blocked, and the other two have been blocked for one year. The attachment related pages are in the course of being rewritten. Fainites ^barley 20:28, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Update - User:RalphLender has been blocked indef. as a sockpuppet and User:DPeterson has been blocked for one year by ArbCom. Fainites ^barley 18:33, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Hypno-psychotherapy merge proposal

This section is way too long, I think it would be good for it to have its own article - and I think it does already: Hypnotherapy. Do people agree that these are the same thing? If so, we need to merge the content from this section into that article, and write a short summary bit to replace it here. If they are not the same thing, then I believe a new article needs to be created. Opinions? Steve Carlson^Talk 06:26, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Not an expert, but they sound the same to me. I say go for it. Eve (talk) 11:05, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Its an interesting and well written essay but its out of place here. I agree this article needs a short summary of the current practice of psychotherapy within clinical hypnosis/hypnotherapy. I wouldn't so much merge as transfer the whole essay into Hypnotherapy and then put a different summary here. This page is more a sort of round up of all the different therapies. Fainites ^barley 19:07, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Carlrogers.jpg

The image Image:Carlrogers.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --05:41, 17 May 2008 (UTC) Bold text

This book is really good....but...

I don't know where to put in the article

http://www.powells.com/biblio?show=TRADE%20PAPER:USED:9780495100584:79.00#table_of_contents --202.14.152.15 (talk) 03:23, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

No mention of Coue? Are psychotherapists ashamed of him? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.15.226.132 (talk) 02:03, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Therapeutic Relationship

I think much of this section is plagiarized, the text is identical to the article here: http://www.experiencefestival.com/a/Psychotherapy_-_Therapeutic_Relationship/id/598080

Clichecow (talk) 03:01, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

• Agreed and have deleted the sub-section--Ziji (talk email) 05:57, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Fred M. Levin

I created this page on a psychotherapist, Fred M. Levin. I think he is noteworthy in the field. It is up for deletion. Anyone care to opine? If this is an inappropraite forum for this, just delete it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Fred_M._Levin_(2nd_nomination)

Mwalla (talk) 23:00, 23 February 2009 (UTC)mwalla

• Yes, yes. Fred Levin is noteworthy. Some arrogant "deletionists" have lord it over the Wikipedia, I believe. 122.3.208.80 (talk) 00:47, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Common Factors Theory

There is a fledgling article at Common factors theory. It too references "The Great Psychotherapy Debate" by Wampold. Some relationship between the section on Criticisms and this other article should be made. This section should also mention the larger debate over Evidence-based practice.

I'm also curious why there is a list of books in the References section which are not referenced by the text. An article in a collection there by Ted Asay contains the phrase "Common Factors" in its title. --Tedlau (talk) 22:41, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm a psychotherapist in Illinois. I have followed this debate since Graduate school in 1996. There's an awful lot to be said about this issue; I think referencing and mentioning the conclusions in this study might be a good idea: [5] SLCostello (talk) 06:28, 22 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by SLCostello (talk • contribs) 06:23, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I ended up deleting the section about controversies in psychotherapy. I had provided additional information about evidenced based practices as well as other important up to date information with scientific citations which would be immediately available to wiki users but somebody vandalized it. Considering how choppy the section was with such limited information, and the unwillingness of someone to allow more information in the section, it just seemed best to delete it altogether, unfortunately. As a professional who practices evidenced based therapies and who is well read on the effectiveness of psychotherapy, it is upsetting to see this kind of article in Wiki about the field. And for me, it has downgraded Wiki's credibility Substantially.--SLCostello (talk) 06:10, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I put back the entire article with my additions which were unfairly deleted without any discussion. I reviewed the guidelines of edit warring and found that my additions to the section of the article are appropriate in that they are based on scientific evidence and they provide citations. I am not the one who started the warring here, but you can stop it by entering into a discussion. Wikipedia articles are not owned by one or a few users; sorry to crash the Pedia Party. Thank you. --SLCostello (talk) 15:45, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I haven't participated in discussion at this article before, I mostly watch it for vandalism and excessive coverage of fringe theories; however I did notice the recent activity on the page and review the most recent additions. It appears that the new material is unbalanced, excessive, and inappropriately biased. The section is about controversy, yet all of the new material is about 'support' not 'controversy' and it more than tripled the length of the section....very unbalanced. Further, it relies heavily on very few references and is heavy-handed POV. While I'm sure regular editors are willing to discuss reasonable changes one step at a time, this is too much material with too many problems to simply be inserted into the existing articles. I'm going to revert the addition again; please note that this will be the third time an experienced editor has reverted the content. Future changes would best be discussed individually on the talkpage, in advance. Thanks, and good luck. Doc Tropics 16:57, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Prior to my edits, the section contained only one controversial meta-analysis by Wampold - I added information about all the major Meta-anal. since 1980. The section contained limited information about the controversies that was just outdated, oversimplified, and failed to include mention of the status of Evidenced Based Therapies since 2001. I added much more information about Evidenced Based Therapies; it may appear biased, but the fact is that the majority of Scientific research out there supports cognitive behavioral therapy. I see that you are an experienced editor, but I strongly question the comments of other users who add just one meta analysis by Wampold and leave out so many others; including only one study is what I call bias - that is why I mentioned all of the meta analysis, as well as more information about evidenced based therapies.

I just don't understand why my postings get deleted and all of the original postings get to stay.--SLCostello (talk) 17:18, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

We may be able to incorporate some of the content, but the style, tone and coherence just isn't up to the standard we want for this article. You also need to ensure that you are writing neutrally, and that all of the sources you are using are reliable. Discuss the changes you want to make here with reference to the sources, and we'll see where we can go with improving the article. Fences&Windows 21:22, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

To begin with, this entire section, prior to my additions, had poor style, tone (in parts), and is quite choppy. I would like to see this section organized better, for example, into paragraphs which contain a thesis and then supporting information. The section should have at least 1 thesis consistent with the heading and then 1-2 paragraphs of information in support of the heading and then 1-2 paragraphs in retort to the heading.

Also, I think in the meantime, the section should be removed entirely until it is redone. The current content lacks source, for example, someone writes the following two sentences:

"The dropout level is quite high; one meta-analysis of 125 studies concluded that the mean dropout rate was 46.86%.[17] The high level of dropout has raised some criticism about the relevance and efficacy of psychotherapy."

The first sentence is cited; however, the second sentence is not. Moreover, the second sentence cannot be found in the abstract which is cited for the first sentence; the scientific abstract only indicates that lower income and minorities had higher drop out rates and suggests more research in the area of dropouts. This to me is very unsettling because it seems like it is a random opinion of an editor juxtaposed next to a citation as though to imply that this was the opinion of the researchers.

Another problems, that hasn't been addressed, and which my edits were trying to fix, was that someone cites the Wampold study from 1998 which is only one of many meta analysis of psychotherapy's effectiveness. This one meta analysis has been the subject of much debate itself and is in no manner representative of the debate about the effectiveness of different types of psychotherapy.

Another problem is that someone added Frank Furedi's book, "Therapy Culture," which is from the 1940s and reprinted in 2004; this book is such a small splinter of an argument and has no bearing on the countless studies which have been done since the 1960s which continually indicate that psychotherapy is indeed effective. His book was written prior to the invention of the most widely researched and effective form of psychotherapy, CBT.

And here's another example of the lack of relevant and current scientific information about psychotherapy - the citation of the book: Against Therapy: Emotional Tyranny and the Myth of Psychological Healing by Jeffrey Moussaieff Masson. There is no science here, just opinion, and quite outdated opinions at best.

And again, somebody cites Hans Eysenck's studies of psychotherapy treatment as questioning the effectiveness of psychotherapy and these, too, are from 1952! As I mentioned before, there have been over a 1000 studies of psychotherapies since 1945, most since 1980, and the most effective forms of therapy were not developed until the 1960s.

This section contains a substantial amount of outdated sources and several of the comments are not scientific but outdated opinions.

How about I start a new section in this Topic about the scientific research supporting the effectiveness of psychotherapy?--SLCostello (talk) 06:27, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Regarding your last suggestion and the general scope of your concerns, the bulk of the article is already about the effectiveness of psychotherapy....the "Criticism" section is specifically about criticism. It would not be at all appropriate to force "equal space" for responses. Properly referenced responses to specific points might be briefly explained at the end of a paragraph, but any more would be undue. Please understand that it doesn't matter how many studies have been done which support the effectiveness of therapy, there has indeed been academic controversy and criticism, and a properly encyclopedic article will include that information. Again, the Criticism section is about criticism. As I suggested on your talkpage, the best way to start is pick one particular paragraph (or subtopic), highlight your concerns, and suggest a specific improvement that other editors can respond to. Doc Tropics 01:07, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Chess Therapy

I'm a doctoral student and I have recently reviewed Chess Therapy by Fadul and Canlas (2009) ISBN 9780557148752 as part of my book report (an academic exercise) and finds chess therapy interesting. Any expansion or exposition along this line? 122.3.208.80 (talk) 00:45, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, Wikipedia currently contains no information about Chess Therapy at all, and since the primary source is so recently published, it's probably too soon to look for any here. Because secondary sources are strongly preferred as references, there is generally a lag time while new ideas and developments are reviewed and discussed by the appropriate professional community. On the other hand, if you're aware of any useful references, particularly from peer-reviewed journals, you could certainly be bold and add to the article yourself. Good luck, Doc Tropics 21:26, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

The book is "published" by Lulu, i.e. it is self-published. I removed mention of it from the article a while back. Fences&Windows 14:54, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification; that explains things. Self-pub.... Doc Tropics 16:26, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Criticism section

I certainly don't know enough about psychotherapy to fix this myself, but I do know that it needs to be fixed. 69.106.240.41 (talk) 10:30, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

The criticism section should definitley be reviewed. There are references to Masson, who has no training i psychotherapy and whose book recieved mainly negative reviews. Other references are to people who have published critical books with themselves as publishers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.34.83.114 (talk) 22:55, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Probably a 900-pages german book which was very influential in Germany from the midninties should be included here. It is a meta-analysis of 3500 respectively 900 publications till 1985 on the outcome of psychotherapy. Klaus Grawe - Psychotherapie im Wandel. His conclusions resemble those of Wampold, see: de:Psychotherapieforschung#Schulenunspezifische_Wirkfaktoren . for more information on Grawe see: http://www.psychotherapyresearch.org/displaycommon.cfm?an=1&subarticlenbr=50

The paragraph on "spontanuous remission" lacks references to the first author of this argument H.J. Eysenck (1952) and to an important article of McNeilly and Howard (1991). To summarize: Yes, psychotherapy is effective. Yes, social ressources are effective too. Perhaps they are equally effective, BUT psychotherapy helps much faster. Eysenck, H. J. (1952). The effects of psychotherapy: an evaluation. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 16(5), 319-324. McNeilly, C. L., & Howard, K. I. (1991). The effects of psychotherapy: A reevaluation based on dosage. Psychotherapy Research, 1(1), 74-78. doi: 10.1080/10503309112331334081 Dr.a.hartmann (talk) 15:42, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Info about the topic and zen....

• http://scholar.google.com.hk/scholar?hl=en&q=allintitle%3A+zen+psychotherapy&btnG=Search&as_sdt=2000&as_ylo=&as_vis=0

• http://scholar.google.com.hk/scholar?hl=en&q=allintitle%3A+chan+psychotherapy&btnG=Search&as_sdt=2000&as_ylo=&as_vis=0

--222.67.219.55 (talk) 09:10, 1 May 2010 (UTC)