Jump to content

Talk:Psychotherapy

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by RobertPlamondon (talk | contribs) at 03:44, 10 February 2015. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Vital article

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

This question of efficacy versus expediency has been discussed since Freud. My feeling is that no matter how expedient the solution is, reoccurrence of symptoms is in the long run highly detrimental. Therefore, social support cannot be undervalued. Galfromohio (talk) 12:29, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unbalanced critique

The psychotherapy article needs a balanced critique section. The current article contains a section called "criticisms and questions regarding effectiveness" in which a few random studies have been cited, and a laundry list of random arguments are put forward. It is not a comprehensive precis of the effectiveness literature. The article neglects a wide body of work that points to a) the success of some types of therapy with specific types of disorders, b) discipline-agnostic characteristics of therapist behaviour that contribute to success, c) superiority of psychopharmacology & psychotherapy combined, vs either intervention on it's own, d) characteristics of clients/patients that seem to benefit most from psychotherapy, and e) vested interests of stakeholders in swinging research to one side of the debate or the other and other inhibiting factors - consider the two APA's, the various laws and licensing authorities, the separate academic communities in psychiatry, philosophy, social work, occupational therapy, the professional jealousies, the profound neglect of mental illness and psychological wellbeing in public health and health insurance, and the impact of the pharmaceutical industry's deep pockets on the dominant discourse.

Please note that I am editing anonymously in protest against the tyrrany of the editing majority. Wikipedia's non-negotiable, amateur editor norm might be appropriate for certain article categories, but in more nuanced technical spaces there is invariably a segment that make nuisances of themselves by wanting to debate every word and angle. I have watched the development of articles on schools of psychotherapy since the early 2000s, and I'm afraid time and multiple amateur edits have not improved them much. In the specific case of psychology their mistakes add to the perception that this is a wishy washy discipline void of a body of knowledge and ANY facts. I suspect that this is partly why self-respecting people who are knowledgeable don't want to be involved in what is otherwise a very worthy undertaking.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.242.118.144 (talk) 10:52, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Info about the topic and zen....

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

References

I have formatted the references uniformly (lastname, firstname I., date dmy, etc.). I have added doi's, pmid, links, isbn's etc. for all the references I could. I have removed the bibliography section as it contained only one uncited book:

  • Asay, Ted P.; Lambert, Michael J. (1999). "The Empirical Case for the Common Factors in Therapy: Quantitative Findings". In Hubble, Mark A.; Duncan, Barry L.; Miller, Scott D. (eds.). The Heart and Soul of Change: What Works in Therapy. American Psychological Association. pp. 23–55. ISBN 9781557985576.

I have also added page needed tags to quite a few refs and a couple of reliability and verify tags. I am setting up autoarchiving on this talk page. - - MrBill3 (talk) 14:22, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. Diannaa (talk) 00:58, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A More Neutral Definition?

I tried to make the definition more neutral by focusing on what psychotherapy actually is, rather than which diploma is on the wall. Licensure is an important topic but doesn't belong in the definition itself. RobertPlamondon (talk) 03:44, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Psychotherapy&oldid=646446676"