Talk:Attachment-based therapy (children)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Psychology (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Untitled[edit]

New page created from Child psychotherapy page. Attachment based interventions only. Currently just children. Fainites barley 22:14, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Work in progress.Fainites barley 21:10, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Attachment-based psychotherapy[edit]

What's the relationship to this article? Can they be merged? /skagedaltalk 16:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. It says attachment based psychotherapy is a form of psychoanalysis that is informed by attachment theory. However, attachment based therapies for children, are exactly that - therapies for children that are based on attachment theory. They are not psychoanalysis and attachment theory is not part of psychoanalysis (even though Bowlby was a psychoanalyst). On the other hand - Lieberman is psychotherapy and is, broadly speaking, a psychoanalytic approach. I suppose one could have an article called "Attachment based therapies" and include attachment based psychotherapy - whether for adults or children. I left the psychoanalytic approaches behind on the Child psychotherapy page because I thought a page trying to cover all therapies for children would be too long. Fainites barleyscribs 22:59, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Family attachment narratives[edit]

This needs to be made into a complete sentence, at least.

Dyadic developmental Psychotherapy[edit]

It's not much help to say "these techniques" unless the techniques are described. In this statement, by the way, there is an element of apriority, as the contributor assumes that replication of earlier experiences will provide a correction for a distorted developmental trajectory-- if this claim is being made, evidence should be cited. Finally, this para gives no connection between attachment theory and DDP except for the assumption just noted. The claim is thus "confident speculation" rather than a statement based on cited evidence. Once again, a nice knock-down argument! Jean Mercer (talk) 23:50, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Edit[edit]

Hughes has a Ph.D., so stating that is consistent with policy and it is verifiable. The additional material meets verifiable policy since the statement is supported, even if POV pushers disagree. Corkytig (talk) 21:15, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Its totally unecessary. He's a psychologist. What more is needed? Anyway - you are yet another Weidman sock so you shouldn't be editing anyway. Fainites barleyscribs 21:24, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Checklist[edit]

Jean Mercers suggested checklist (from old page):

1. Targeted population (diagnosis or other characteristics like age limits)

2. Related diagnostic methods not set out for children

3. Description of intervention, including scheduling

4. Training or other characteristics of practitioners

5. Place of treatment-- home, office, residential program

6. Theoretical basis

7. Supportive research

8. Adverse events

9. Professional reviews and published comments

10. Medicaid and private insurance coverage

Fainites barleyscribs 01:13, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I have a question[edit]

Actually two.

Isn't Circle of security more of a prevention program? maybe not.

Why isn't Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy listed somewhere here? As I read that article it seems to fit. What am I missing? RankinUberall (talk) 18:28, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi Dr BW. An evidence base is what you're missing. Take care now. Fainites barleyscribs 01:07, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

My edit[edit]

I don't understand why you sir, mr. fainites, are so hostile to any adding of ddp to this page. As i mentioned, i think ddp has some support, a study or two, and is a treatment that has some promising material written about it, so why not allow my edit. I thought wikipedia is supposed to allow multiple views, so even if you disagree, why are you the one to decide? Do you own this page? I didn't think that was how this site worked, but if i am wrong, so be it? PranakanLegion (talk) 01:26, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

As pointed out on your talk page, your editing is very similar to that of prior sockpuppets of a blocked editor. Sorry if any of the comments have appeared hostile.
Sockpuppetry aside, there are other concerns, also pointed out on your talk page: The information you want to add needs to meet WP:NPOV and WP:MEDRS. Can we continue by discussing WP:NPOV and WP:MEDRS? Can we start with just one of the two articles? --Ronz (talk) 02:45, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
I have read the articles you recommended and it appears that my edits are consistent. The additions are neutral on tone and adequately sourced. So, I've gone ahead and put that material back in. However, if you disagree, please explain how my edit is not neutral or sourced? PranakanLegion (talk) 07:39, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
I must also add, mr. ronz, that your comments when you removed my edit appear to violate the criteria of no personal attacks or something like that...don't you agree? PranakanLegion (talk) 07:41, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
As stated I believe you to be a sock of a longterm sockpuppeteer and banned user who repeatedly attempts to add DDP to articles usually with inadequate or inappropriate sourcing. DDP has one old study using inadequate methodology, plus 4 year follow-up. It falls far below any wiki standard required to start including it as any kind of mainstream treatment on either this page or the Complex post-traumatic stress disorder page. Fainites barleyscribs 15:55, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
Ronz, this fainites continues to respond with bad faith and makes personal accusations, see talk page for Complex post traumatic stress disorder where fainites says, "As stated I believe you to be a sock of a longterm sockpuppeteer and banned user who repeatedly attempts to add DDP to articles usually with inadequate or inappropriate sourcing. DDP has one old study using inadequate methodology, plus 4 year follow-up. It falls far below any wiki standard required to start including it as any kind of mainstream treatment on either this page or the Attachment-based therapy (children) page. Fainites barleyscribs 16:12, 12 December 2010 (UTC)" This is bad faith. I don't understand why he acts as if he owns this page and is do vehement about DDP. My reading of the standards for inclusion in an article is that with all the citations I listed it is clearly adequate. My edit is sources and NPOV. This fainites appears to be manufacturing criteria that have nothing to do with written wiki policies. PranakanLegion (talk) 10:12, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Removed contributions of a sock[edit]

A user active on this article, Argon&Helium, looks to have been banned as a sock puppet in a long-term abuse case:

Accordingly, I have removed the content added by this user. Regardless, this is not an area of expertise for me, so if there's consensus that parts of the user's contributions were productive, feel free to add them back in. --— Rhododendrites talk |  14:20, 2 May 2014 (UTC)