Talk:Dyadic developmental psychotherapy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Psychology  
WikiProject iconThis 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.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 

Archives[edit]

Evidence base[edit]

DPeterson. If you wish to include Craven and Lee as stating DDP is 'evidence based' please provide the page number, full quote and context showing where they say this. (I cannot find it in my copy of their review cited by you.) Please also state, with a citation, what accepted definition of 'evidence base' you are using. 'Evidence base' is a strong claim and is not acceptable without notable, verified and accurately represented sources in support.Fainites barley 16:24, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

As a matter of interest (as of course it's not a source), when I e-mailed Lee for an advance view of his now published study I explained that it was being cited on Wiki in support of the proposition that DDP was 'evidence based' and asked him directly if that was the case. He replied "No, it should not be considered "evidence-based." One (weak) study does not a conclusion make! Category three means that it may be worthy of future study." Fainites barley 16:42, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Your correspondance is OR and does not meet Wikipedia standards for verifiability. The Craven & Lee article defines Dyadic Developmetal Psychotherapy as evidence-based, meeting Category 3, "Category 3: Supported and acceptable treatment" see pgs282, 301, and throughout the rest of the article. Now, one limiting factor was that they based their assessment on a partial and preliminary study from 2004 by Becker-Weidman and did not base it on the much more extensive studies from the professional peer-reviewed publications. DPetersontalk 18:23, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, DPeterson, that quote is very helpful. As per your quote, Craven & Lee have called Dyadic Developmetal Psychotherapy "Supported and acceptable". I propose adding that to the text of the article (something along the lines of "Craven & Lee have described Dyadic Developmetal Psychotherapy as 'Supported and acceptable'". Since Craven & Lee do not use the term "evidence-based," that term should not be used here. StokerAce 18:56, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

They do use the term evidence-based...that is the level within the category system they use. Suggest you read the article first if you want to dispute it. DPetersontalk 20:21, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

They do not describe DDP as "evidence-based". Unless they do, you just can't say that it is. Your quote makes that clear. StokerAce 20:26, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

"Evidence-based" is not defined by anyone (other than DPeterson) as "supported and acceptable". By the categorization system used by (but not developed by) Craven & Lee, "supported and acceptable" refer to separate items in the requirements for Category 3. If this is not deliberate misrepresentation by DPeterson, it is woefully inadequate philology. Larry Sarner 20:54, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps we should include a reference to this particular classification system and the controversy over it. By the way DP, I said my e-mail from R.E.Lee was OR. I just thought you might be interested. Fainites barley 21:57, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

In order to be rated on the Saunders et al system used by Craven & Lee, DDP would have to have a manual or other intervention fidelity assurance. It has none, so even the weak category 3 rating is not possible. The parallel is to an "unrated" movie.Jean Mercer 22:07, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Well Craven and Lee is still a source though, but the response to that can also be cited, and the next! Fainites barley 22:09, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I've just looked at Craven and Lee again. They describe it as a "treatment protocol classification system (see Table 1; Saunders, Berliner, & Hanson, 2004)." Nowhere is anything described as 'evidence based'. Presumably you would not argue, DP, that Myeroff, also Category 3, constituted an evidence base for holding therapy? Also, how does this system fit with eg Chaffins definition of evidence based? Fainites barley 22:17, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Maybe DPeterson can answer a question for me. It's this article in the Sturt book. Why do those two results tables have the rightmost column as "t-test prob" rather than giving the t-value? Also, are those rightmost t-values for pretest versus 2nd post-test, or for 1st post-test versus second post-test?

Also, are you able to explain how the control group was originally established? Were these children whose parents elected not to use DDP? If so, what were the parents' reasons for their decision?

These questions are relevant to evaluation of the quality of the research. Jean Mercer 01:38, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm-- DPeterson knows the articles well enough to catch my poor memory about the meaning of those numbers. I was hoping he could supply further answers, because no matter how carefully I read, I don't see the answers in the articles.Jean Mercer 12:52, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

DDP What is it?[edit]

The first paragraph in this article is basically saying : 'this really works and it is not a fake'

Nowhere is it explained what actually happens during the sessions. There are some hints of confronting traumatic issues. And some hint of being coerced into 'something' but it is never said what that is or what really goes on.

And why the term Dyadic? That should be explained in the first paragraph. To me it really seems like basic old coercive, anger provoking attachment therapy with a new name.

We know that holding therapy is the over the lap, constant eye contact anger provoking method. But what is this DDP?

The article should be completely rewritten.

Maybe DP can tell us what goes on in a session. But I doubt that he will.

FatherTree 21:07, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

If you read the articles on psychoanalysis, cognitive therapy, systematic densensitization it actually state in the artcile what happens during a session. This is not the case with DDP which I think is incorrect. I can see now in the AT article where what actually happens is described: restraint, eye contact, rage induction, then recapitulation and crying, then affection. What happens in a DDP session? Dr Weiderman could just tell us and that would be helpful. FatherTree 21:22, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Daniel Hughes website is interesting. He describes his development away from coercion, obedience and control and so on. interestingly he lists all the things DDP does not contain, which is a reasonably comprehensive list of what alot of attachment therapies do contain according to Chaffin et al. I suggest we look to Hughes for a description of DDP. Fainites barley 22:01, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Along these lines, the current version of the article says: "Periodic confrontation may be necessary and needs to be integrated into the overall treatment session. Reassurance and repair of the relationship after confrontation is crucial." Anyone know what this means? StokerAce 23:21, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes that is my point. Dr. Weiderman could have just written in the article what goes on in a session. And if it is not coersion or something AT-like, well good. But just tell the world what really happens. That is why I am suspicious because he did not state what happens in the session. The other articles state clearly what happens. Is that not what most of psychotherapy is: sessions? FatherTree 23:27, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

If Dr B-W put it in the article it would be OR. The place to find it should be Dr B-W's book 'Creating Capacity for Attachment'. As I understand it, Pignotti & Mercers criticism of Craven and Lee placing DDP in category 3 was the lack of a treatment manual explaining exactly what the treatment is and enabling the therapy to be replicated. Fainites barley 23:34, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Here is a passage from Hughes website, from his 1997 book;

"To be effective, the child must be engaged by the therapist at the level of preverbal attunement rather than in a setting of rational discussions. The therapy must also involve a great deal of physical contact between the child and the therapist and parent. During much of the most intense therapeutic work, the child is being touched or held by the therapist or parent. His intense emotions are received, accepted, and integrated into the self. Within a therapeutic atmosphere based on attunement, he is able to begin to explore aspects of himself and his relationships with his parents that have previously not been accessible. The development of both the child's attachment to his parents and his integrated self is the primary goal of the therapist; all else is secondary."

Fainites barley 23:44, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks but it is not really clear on how the instense emotions come to be. He is being held and then has intense emotions? Another thing that bothers me is that physical closeness is usually hooked with emotional closesness. Of course a bio mother is close to her infant, but an adoptive mother does not have that same situation. And in our society physical closeness and touch is considered wrong or at least inappropriate when there is no emotional connection. It seems the child would be more confused by having to be 'close' to a therapist whose main motivation in the relationship is money. And we are dealing with kids that have problems in the first place. And even some bio kids do not like being held etc. Althought it would be unethical to have a proper control we would to subject mentally health bio kids to the same therapy and see the results. I think a kid with no problems would start crying etc just to get out of the situation not because they were releasing pent up aggression.
I think the physical closeness in an adoptive situation should follow the emotional closeness not vice versa. There are many mothers of bio kids who are disappointed that they do not have a really affectionate kid. But those kids do not have to go to 'therapy' for it. But the adoptive kid would. And this bizarre ever-fixed eye contact. That is not normal. These extrordinary claims need extraordinary proof. Especially when the potential for harm is so high. FatherTree 00:13, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I don't think Hughes does advocate forced eye contact.Jean Mercer 00:23, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

My concern is more with the definition of attunement. With respect to parents and infants, this usually refers to the parent's involuntary sharing and mirroring of the infant's feelings. Some of Becker-Weidman's material has given me the impression that the adult imitates the older child's emotions as the adult believes them to be. Although I can see this as a form of reflection of feeling, I don't believe that the connection with parent-infant attunement is obvious. The older child has already developed some later aspects of "theory of mind" (however poorly this has been done)and has developed some socialized ways of expressing feeling, and is altogether a different person from an infant. The adult responds differently to an older child than to an infant, and normally this is quite appropriate. Does DDP train the parent to demonstrate attunement by voice, facial expression, gesture, and posture? I don't know the answer to this question, and it seems to me that it would be as important a part of a manual as elucidation of confrontation would be.

On a related topic,Becker-Weidman, in his article in the Sturt book, spoke of teaching the parent attachment parenting methods and cited Deborah Gray and Nancy Thomas, two important figures in the world of holding therapy. These citations were removed in the online CAMH article. What does this mean? Are Nancy Thomas methods (such as strong sitting,food limitation, and bottle-feeding of school-age children) part of DDP, or not? Becker-Weidman's "Book about Me and Dr. Art" used much language characteristic of methods adjuvant to holding therapy, but has been removed from the web site.

Presumably, the Thomas and Gray methods were in some way related to the original study, done several years ago and published in 2006. These materials were on Becker-Weidman's web site until about a year ago, so I assume that he used or favored them at the time of the original study. DDP may no longer employ such techniques, I certainly grant; but if it does not, it may not be the same intervention that was tested by Becker-Weidman's study. In any case, it is clear that some more specific description of the treatment used at the time of the study is needed-- especially in the light of a few differences between the Sturt and the CAMH publications.Jean Mercer 00:46, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Excellent points. Yes what exactly was the technique used in the studies. Dr. Wiedeman could explain here and clarify it for all of us and the interested public in general. FatherTree 00:53, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Does that mean that although Hughes intended DDP to be removed from these AT techniques, practitoners may in reality be combining the two? Fainites barley 19:08, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Citations[edit]

I'm a bit puzzled by '...found by two studies and several empirical articles to be effective...'. It contains 3 references to a 2006 study. One in a journal, one online and one in Sturt. Is this in fact all the same study? the four year follow up? Can anyone answer this? Apart from that the other cite for that phrase is Becker-Weidmans book which is neither a study nor an empirical article. Surely this ought to read two studies, and cite the 2004 and the 2006 study. The various places of publication can then be listed. Fainites barley 22:38, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

There was one original study, with a published report, and a follow-up on the same participants, with a published report that summarized the original results as well as the follow-up. As the same participants were assessed both times, this would seem to be a single study with repeated measures. The number of publications resulting is not the point.Jean Mercer 22:46, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

What I'd love to know is how they got 100% of the "usual care" group questionnaires back but only 53% of the DDP group. You'd expect it to be the other way around. It would seem that the two groups were not equivalent on some variables like geographical mobility or literacy. The high attrition rate in the DDP group should have been discussed and handled statistically, but it was not. Jean Mercer 22:51, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

So were both studies only published in 2006 then? The original 1 year study and the 4 year follow up? (I did find them once but didn't keep copies).Fainites barley 22:54, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Wrong, you misread the articles. It does not state that only 53% of the treatment group returned the materials. I suggest you reread the material so you don't make such glaring errors. Both were published in 2006 as the citations show. DPetersontalk 22:56, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

You're quite right, sorry, those percentages were about who got usual care at different points. Mea culpa, or my bad, whichever you prefer.Jean Mercer 23:13, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

So there are just two published studies, one being a four year follow up of the first. Is there any objection then to altering that sentence to read "...found by two studies, the second a four year follow up of the first, to be effective..." Fainites barley 23:15, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm also a bit puzzled by the fact that the first says its for 'Trauma-Attachment Disorder' and the second says its for 'Reactive Attachment Disorder'. This seems odd if one was a follow up of the other, or did the categories change in the mean time? The article claims it is effective for attachment disorder, reactive attachment disorder and complex trauma. Fainites barley 23:18, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Complex trauma was only fairly recently suggested as a diagnosis-- it's not in DSM-IVTr. I believe there is a movement arguing that it should be included when the next DSM comes around. I don't see that the online CAMH article says how this was diagnosed, nor do I think it was mentioned in the 2006 CASWJ article that described the first part of the study.Jean Mercer 00:09, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Jean I admire you so much for coming out publicly against all of this. While others are profiting from maladjusted adopted children you are really helping them. And the courage you have shown in exposing so much of your personal life in order to help people you will never see. And Larry Sarner and Linda Rosa are doing the same. I do not see Dr. Weideman coming forward to defend his theories or positions. He hides in the shadows and just profits from all of this. He does not have the courage to come forward and stand up for what he allegedly believes in. FatherTree 11:45, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, FatherTree--- but we're all trying to make ourselves useful here! I just came on here to query the Kim Cross article link. I don't really understand the Wiki rules about this, but what is the value of having this piece linked to this topic?Jean Mercer 12:57, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Which link is that? I think this whole article needs to be rewritten or deleted. It comes off like an ad. FatherTree 15:17, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I have removed a link which was just to a Wiki copy site. Fainites barley 17:38, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

The original study seems not to have been published in a peer reviewed article. It is found on Becker-Weidmans site. It then appears as part of the 2006 follow up, which was peer reviewed. I have included it in the evidence section. Fainites barley 21:48, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

The original study first appeared on the web site, then was published as the CASWJ article. Then there were two versions of the follow-up piece, one in Sturt, one presently on line for CAMH. Jean Mercer 12:19, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah I see. I thought there was one of the original and 3 of the second, one of which included a summary of the original. I don't quite understand this publishing the same study in more than one place though. Fainites barley 17:47, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Coerciveness[edit]

I think it sounds odd to bang on about non-coerciveness in the intro. I am not aware of any authority suggesting DDP itself is coercive. To include this issue twice in the intro makes it sound defensive, like it is accused of being coercive. Fainites barley 16:38, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

It seems that making the point about its being non-coercive is important since the ACT group keeps bringing up this point in every article it can. RalphLendertalk 18:39, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Where is it suggested that DDP is coercive? Interestingly enough Dr Becker-Weidman wrongly accused the Taskforce of the same thing, ie saying DDP was coercive. I think the presentation here is overly defensive. Fainites barley 18:46, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

This quotation from the reply might help:

Although we did not discuss DDP in the report, it is worth considering, whether DDP is a concerning, coercive, abusive attachment therapy or a promising, nonconcerning, and noncoercive treatment. We hope it is the latter; however, it can be difficult to judge. Viewed from the outside, there can be a concerning duality about some attachment therapies, in which practitioners can engage in or condone frankly coercive and abusive techniques yet still publicly characterize their practices as kind, gentle, respectful, and necessary. To our knowledge, DDP has not been implicated in any of these cases, and we have no reason to suspect that it should be. Yet the history of other abusive attachment therapies gives us and other outsiders pause. One of the lessons we learned on the Task Force was that attachment therapies are diverse and that there are controversies about coercive practices within the attachment therapy world and outside. A paradigm shift has been described as occurring within the attachment therapy field, moving away from coercive or confrontational models and toward models based on parent–child attunement and emotional regulation skills and has been embraced by many leaders in the field (Kelly, 2006; Popper, 2006). We came to believe that many attachment therapies and practitioners are quite different from the tragic cases seen in the media or the concerning attachment therapy techniques we encounter (and continue to encounter) secondhand in our own work with abused, foster, and adoptive children. It also became clear how difficult it is to differentiate among attachment therapies and practices, given that all present themselves publicly as respectful, humane, and nurturing.

Fainites barley 18:52, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

The intro now reads better with the edits. It is more accurate and complete. the weblink seems useful too. The ACT website and the material you and others added to the article Attachment Therapy seems to reflect this. RalphLendertalk 18:56, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry Ralph but calling DDP 'evidence based', whether on the basis of the two studies, or Craven and Lee, is simply not going to be able to stand. There is no passage in Craven and Lee that claims DDP is evidence based. Further, 'evidence based' has a particular meaning and requires randomized controlled trials, replication, meta analysis and acceptance within the broader psychology community. You and DPeterson have yet to provide a source that states DDP is evidence based. Regarding the website, having a link to a site that is simply an out of date carbon copy of Wiki is absurd and in no way comparable to having a link to ACT's website. If there is an independent site about DDP that would be different. Fainites barley 19:02, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Intro rewrite[edit]

I've been studying quite hard all day, so I'm tired. Please excuse any errors in the intro on this basis.

I tried to put some of the treatment approach into the intro. I've actually read Hughes' and Becker-Weidman's books. Perhaps I'm just not qualified for psychology, but these two are not explicit about their treatment methods. We therefore must rely on the vague terms they use. Since nobody has published anything about the vague nature of this therapy, we can't make such a conclusion. I am willing to blame it on my lack of expertise, but I've read about other therapies and the manuals were rather clear. I think the use of quotation marks are helpful here because they indicate we're using Hughes' words and terminology, rather than summarazing or paraphrasing their words.

I also tried to explain a little about Becker-Weidman. There are two names in the promotion and creation of DDP: Hughes and Becker-Weidman. Thus, it seems appropriate to put in a little bit about their relationship to the therapy. Similarly, Craven and Lee are not "related" to either Hughes or Becker-Weidman so I indicated as such.

We need to run through the article and check the citations. The last conflict here created a situation in which DPeterson was replacing {{fact}} tags with completely unrelated references. I presume that some of the other people editing here are in a better position to check these, but I'll give it a go.

Please check my edits for very carefully for neutrality issues. Also notice that I redlinked the attachment therapy center at Evergreen. This institute satsifies all of the notability guidelines (and then some) and would go a long ways in helping to manage the current attachment therapy articles. shotwell 07:11, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps JeanMercer could help write an article on the AT centre at Evergreen, or at least point in the direction of relevent sources. Fainites barley 20:35, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I removed the information that I added about where Becker-Weidman trained. The info is on his website (although I neglected to source it), but DPeterson has stated that Becker-Weidman did not train there and I believe DPeterson is quite aware of where Becker-Weidman trained. Specifically, DPeterson called the information slanderous. If the allegations against DPeterson are true, then it is wise to just remove the information given its relative insignificance. shotwell 20:24, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

What?[edit]

"In the process of maintaining an intersubjective attuned connection with the child, the therapist and caregiver help the child regulate affect and construct a coherent autobiographical narrative."

What the hell does this mean? Is this a ridiculous way of saying "They talk with the kid, don't act insane, and then help the kid express their feelings in a constructive manner"? The methods section is full of such nonsense. shotwell 10:05, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

The part that interests me here is regulation of affect. Certainly one of the achievements of maturation is to be able to regulate affect, keep yourself from getting carried away, calm yourself when distressed, or if necessary lash yourself into a rage. If they mean they help the child calm down, that's one thing; if they mean they do "emotional shuttling" a la Neil Feinberg--- getting the child upset, then bringing him down, then up-- that's quite another. As for constructing a coherent autobiographical narrative, if it's a matter of helping the child make sense of his or her past history (why adopted, etc.), and reframing abandonment, that's one thing-- if it's a matter of making the child say over and over "I hate her, i hate her", again, that's another thing.

Another very important and completely unmentioned issue is how the parents are trained. If they can't pick up the child's cues before, what helps them become attuned now? Do they just model on the therapist, or what? Nobody's telling! Yet with the parent as co-therapist (sous-therapist?)this is an exceedingly important point.

I tried to clarify the first couple of paras. I think it would be a good idea to avoid diagnostic issues and terms like "attachment disorder' that carry a lot of baggage, and simply look at the kinds of children and families that are most likely to receive this treatment. Whether they "have RAD" is not such a simple matter as whether someone "has chickenpox".

I'll come back with the Stern and Tronick references, by the way.Jean Mercer 12:53, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand what they do either, and this is why I question the existence of enough of a manual to allow intervention fidelity. Not only is it not clear what Hughes and B-W have been doing, there's no way to know what their trainees have taken away with them. This is why I've asked for a case study, which they've never presented-- all they ever give is a composite case.Jean Mercer 12:29, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Started rewrite of methods section[edit]

I began to rewrite the "methods" section. I removed a large number of highly irrelevant references in the process, maybe it'd be good to check this over. Given that there are no explicit directions for DDP, I think this section could be condensed down to three paragraphs. We don't need redundant buzzwords, all the theorizing about therapy, etc. If necessary, we could create a "theoretical motivations" section to explain the rationales. I also changed 'client' to 'patient' (that the word 'client' was chosen is very telling) because it helped cut down on the marketing-jingo feel to the whole section. shotwell 10:44, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Nice start Shotwell. The methods section needs to be greatly reduced. I look forward to your erudite synopsis! On the 'evidence base section', I think it is inevitable that this section will need to contain reference to the APSAC report concerns regarding becker-Weidman, Hughes and DDP. Fainites barley 16:39, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Just a comment, Shotwell-- it is customary nowadays for psychotherapy "patients" to be called "clients", the implication being that they are people of dignity who have sought to purchase the therapist's services, not sick sick sickos. I don't know whether this view helps anybody at all, but it comes from back in Carl Rogers' time, when the emphasis moved to the idea that people have the seeds of their own improvement within them, and the therapist provides the environment where they can grow. Anyway, however much this usage (client) may seem related to some of the DDP commercialism, it's far from unusual-- also cf. calling people in experiments "participants" rather than "subjects."Jean Mercer 16:53, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for the clarification. I'm on the way out the door, but I'll do a search & replace back to the original terminology once I have the time. shotwell 17:53, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Like the way British Rail passengers are now called customers.Fainites barley 19:49, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Start rewrite of evidence base section[edit]

I have removed repetition, verbiage and OR to make it easier to consider the actual substance.Fainites barley 20:45, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I've added the basics from APSAC, Becker-Weidmans letter, APSAC's Reply. Craven and Lee, Pignotti and Mercers follow up and Craven and Lees response. Fainites barley 21:55, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Jean, do you think the details about Craven/Lee etc should go in the evidence base section with the rest of it? Fainites barley 18:16, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I have reduced controversial issues to a brief mention in the intro and moved the details to the 'evidence' section. Fainites barley 19:38, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that was a good idea. I've twiddled some of the specifics for increased clarity--- I hope.Jean Mercer 20:23, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Re the suggestion that I write about the history of Evergreen: do you realize that these people have lawyers, and ATTACh retains a public relations firm? I would definitely need to start a new account under a different name to do this-- maybe call myself CatAmongThePigeons.Jean Mercer 00:39, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Or it would just have to be very well sourced. 86.150.50.63 20:16, 5 August 2007 (UTC) That was me. Fainites barley 22:18, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, the trouble with that is that much of the material about Evergreen per se, as opposed to specific individuals associated with Evergreen, comes from old information I took off web sites years ago and from similar sources that are no longer verifiable. Or, e.g., there's that youtube piece with Neil Feinberg in it, but i don't recall that he's named in the original videotape, so there's only my identification for him. There are also some problems about the frequently-changing name of the principal outfit at Evergreen-- an article would have to trace that paper trail carefully to begin with. Some of the same problems would apply to doing an article on ATTACh or RADZebra or Chaddock.... but let me think about it.Jean Mercer 23:34, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Establishing a context[edit]

I'd like to suggest that a way to clarify the status of DDP would be to add articles about other better-substantiated child psychotherapies, such as DIR, Circle of Security, and Parent-Child Interaction Therapy. Having such articles would make it possible for a reader to make some comparisons about the quality of related research, number of publications shown by PsycInfo, and theoretical underpinnings.Jean Mercer 13:07, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Really, on DIR? I find lots of DIRs but not the right one, and when I got to the name of the treatment on the Greenspan page, it says there's no article. Did you find one through some clever ploy?Jean Mercer 11:55, 9 August 2007 (UTC) There's an article on DIR and Stanley Greenspan, but not the others. Fainites barley 21:36, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that is a great idea. How about we coordinate the effort in a centralized place, such as User:Shotwell/Attachment? We could just start by just listing the missing articles and perhaps the relevant sources. shotwell 11:58, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I still don't see any of the right DIR, but maybe there is one. What about adding these as sections to Child psychotherapy, which is already started? We can include DDP. Yes, Shotwell, i'll come over and make a little list. Query to all: do we want to make a point of evidence bases? If so we have to establish some definitions-- i have some to suggest (naturally!). Jean Mercer 21:53, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

It's not a separate article - it is Stanley Greenspan. See you over at Shotwells place. Fainites barley 22:47, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

DIR linked now. Fainites barley 22:48, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Start rewrite of theory section[edit]

It should be clarified that Bowlby's work is only a small part of DDP thinking. The work of Stern and of Tronick is very relevant here, but as far as I can see no one writing about DDP has ever closed the gap between normal developmental steps in infancy and therapeutic work in middle childhood. I will be trying to work on this, but if anyone has a better idea than I do about the rationale for "attunement' in childhood, I hope he or she will step forward.Jean Mercer 13:07, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Do you think, from some of the stuff on attunement, that Eriksonian notions of mirroring for rapport have been imported? Fainites barley 19:50, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, I don't really-- not Erikson-- could be some Theory of Mind connected, though. Erikson's concept deals with people who are cognitively and emotionally much farther along. Again, it's a problem of the parallels, if any, between different developmental periods.Jean Mercer 20:02, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I've attempted a rewrite of the methods section directly from Hughes paper on the subject. It is difficult to see however, any substantial connection with attachment. Fainites barley 13:59, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Also added a theoretical base section and a controversy section. Fainites barley 15:02, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Remove citation[edit]

Citation number 9 needs to be removed, as the paper has been removed from the on line publication and will not appear in print.Jean Mercer 15:37, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Oddly enough, I just put in a direct link to the earlier 2006 article a little while ago and then checked this one but the site had gone all wrong. The name of the article came up but no date and you couldn't click on anything. Whats happened to it? Fainites barley 23:54, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Additions[edit]

I've added two papragraphs. One is from Trowall - about the difficulties and dangers of the attunemment process and its benefits if done carefully. The other is from the Kansas University/Social Services Best Practices Report. The latter analyses the various attachment therapies in some detail and raises an interesting point about discrepancies between DDP as described by Hughes from 2003/4 and DDP as it appears on BW's website as of 2004. They state that BW was at that time claiming 'evidence-based' on the basis of studies undertaken by Myeroff, Randall and Levy. Those studies all relate to holding therapy as practised then - from which they conclude that what BW was practising as DDP was similar to what was described in those studies (for treatment in 2000/01). This of course is somewhat different to what Hughes then describes in 03/04 but it does explain some anomalies eg BW's citation of Hughes 1997 book as a sourcebook for DDP, which contains holding therapy and age regression, and his citation of Thomas and Hage for parenting techniques used at the same time as his therapy in his studies. Thomas also at that time advocated holding therapy and age regression. Fainites barley 17:42, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Source[edit]

Do you have a source for the statement that parents are 'constantly involved' and 'trained' ? Fainites barley 22:54, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

It would be most helpful to have a description of how parents are trained, and to what extent support is offered for situations where the parent's attachment status is contributing to relationship problems.Jean Mercer (talk) 22:33, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Well the IP number who put it in never provided a source for it so eventually I took it out. I added a tag and requested a source here and on their talkpage. Fainites barley 22:34, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

"New study"[edit]

An IP who I believe to be BW himself added the recent publication by BW and Hughes calling DDP "evidence based". On examination its a re-run of the same old two studies + a theoretical description - not a new study at all. I've added it at the bottom. Does anybody know whether there is a new study in the pipeline? The original one dates back to 2000/01. Fainites barleyscribs 21:59, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you've not actually read the article. In my reading of it, it seems less than 20% of the paragraphs are about the two empirical follow-up studies already referenced in this article. The majority of this article is about the long and deep evidence-based empirical support for the various elements or dimensions of this treatment (such as intersubjectivity, sensitivity, client regard, etc. etc. etc), demonstrating the evidence-base for the components of this approach. I don't see why you'd keep deleting relevant material that, as a novice, seems consistent with Wikipedia policies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.88.96.44 (talk) 11:59, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

There's a big difference between saying that there is empirical support for elements claimed as part of a treatment, and that there is an evidence basis for the treatment itself. Cod liver oil is good for you, but is not very palatable in combination with pancakes. By the way, there are not two follow-up studies reported on DDP; there is one study, one follow-up on the same group of participants. In addition, it is essential to understand that individuals were not randomly assigned to the treatment groups, and as a result the evidence is weak because of multiple confounded variables. Faulty statistical analysis, of a kind that creates specious evidence of efficacy, is another serious problem in the reports of outcomes of DDP.

Not only have I read the article, my comments on it are in press in Child and Family Social Work. Perhaps "unsigned" should wait to read those comments before rushing to make corrections here.

[Aren't we tired of covering the same points yet?!] Jean Mercer (talk) 13:36, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps I should point out to "unsigned" (and other readers) that the issue is not about plausibility. DDP's rationale is not implausible, except perhaps for the assumption of recapitulation of early experiences which derives from the treatment's roots in "attachment therapy". However, there is a big difference between plausibility and empirical support. If "unsigned" wants to argue that DDP is plausible, no one would object; it's the claim of evidentiary support that is a problem.Jean Mercer (talk) 15:20, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

We probably aren't done covering the same points yet. There's a whole bunch of IP numbers, often from Buffalo, adding "DPP is evidence based" type edits to a range of attachment related articles and the CPTSD article on a fairly regular basis at the moment. Plus ca change..... Fainites barleyscribs 21:06, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
The other confounding variables in the studies are of course the parents being advised to use AT parenting techniques from Nancy Thomas, Deborah Hage and old-style D. Hughes. Fainites barleyscribs 22:18, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Aha! He's now registered as PAmom to conceal the location. Interestingly the editor also removes the date of Hughes 1997 version of "facilitating attachment" - the recent version being significantly different. Fainites barleyscribs 22:23, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Why are you being so mean? I am not anyone but me. Mercer knows me. I contacted Mercer about my child a while ago. He urged me to not become take my child (Russian by birth) to a therapist who practiced this Dyadic Developmental psychotherapy. He said it my child probably didn't have RAD and that, in any event, RAD is not a real diagnosis and the treatment would hurt him. I almost took her advice. But then I found out that he is not a licensed psychologist or mental health person. In fact, when I did more research I found that he mostly did research as Gene Lester about something I don't understand, but that is not mental health. I also read his website at ACT and was disgusted by his bias and inability to be reasonable. BTW, my child, now several months into treatment is doing very well. There is nothing coercive or Nancy Thomas or "old style" bad stuff going on or recommended by our therapist, who is great. You should be ashamed for writing stuff here that is not true and for removing the facts...PAMom (talk) 00:27, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

PAMom, I have never told anyone a treatment "would hurt" someone. Some treatments have the potential for doing harm, but no crystal ball could predict which would do this to a specific person. Certainly I would never make any but the most general remarks when contacted by someone whose background and intentions I don't know.

Fainites did not say that DDP as currently practiced by a particular therapist necessarily involves any Nancy Thomas-style practices, but in fact there is reason to think that parents whose children were in Becker-Weidman's outcome research were advised to use Nancy Thomas methods. If there have been changes in treatment methods since the original research,as you suggest, it surely is not possible to generalize from reports about past practice to the treatment as it is presently used.

Why don't you just call me "it" and concentrate on the discussion at hand-- which is, as far as I can see, whether or not DDP can be accurately described as evidence-based?96.235.149.34 (talk) 13:39, 30 March 2009 (UTC)Oops, sorry. Jean Mercer (talk) 13:41, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

It's plain to me that PAMom is a re-emergence of DPeterson, the general of Becker-Weidman's sockpuppet army out to renew the edit wars. So I am reverting these changes. Moreover, the changes are vandalistic, and in the case of the "PhD" part, an attempt at advertising and an attempt to set the stage for an argument-from-authority. Larry Sarner (talk) 18:10, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

You did you did you did Mercer. I have the e-mails! You led me to believe you were an expert in mental health treatment for RAD and that you must be licensed and practice. You leaders of ACT are very narrow minded and mean spirited people who just won't listen to anything. Silly silly silly, saying Ph.D is advertising. See, you are just wanted to attack and distort and not be reasonable. Certainly your website is biased and extreme and not even factual. Who says you have any expertise...All the Gene Lester articles have nothing to do with this topic!PAMom (talk) 21:48, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay, post 'em, let everybody see what you read as the claims you're making. Do you think I don't keep my sent mail? But when that's done, do stop babbling, please, and focus on the issues that belong to this article that we're supposedly discussing. Jean Mercer (talk) 01:22, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah. Lets see the e-mails then! My reference is to the fact that Nancy Thomas et al were advised in the DDP studies which related to therapy performed in 2000/01. Hughes main statements on DDP came out in 03/04. If DDP practice no longer includes NT style parenting, then hooray! But the studies can't then be used to validate it. Beyond that, I have nothing to discuss with PAMom who is plainly a sockpuppet of the DPeterson entity along with all the other IP numbers posting the same old DDP adverts and attacks on ACT (see here [1]). Fainites barleyscribs 08:44, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Request regarding edit[edit]

Hughes has a Ph.D., so listing that is consistent with Wikipedia policy. The added lines meet the policy on being verifiable, "Material challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, must be attributed to a reliable, published source." {{policy|WP:V|WP:VERIFY|WP:SOURCE}} {{style-guideline|WP:MOS|WP:STYLE|MOS:}} Corkytig (talk) 21:10, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

The above user has been banned as an abusive sockpuppet, but the issue of describing people comes up often enough that it is worth addressing. The Manual of Style guideline advises that we should generally write simply Xavier rather than noted inventor Professor Dr. Xavier, Ph.D. - Eldereft (cont.) 02:16, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
I identified him as a psychologist. Is that OK? Also - as is typical of this banned user, under an edit summary which would indicate the edit is solely about the title of Hughes, he also added his own therapy/study as evidence-based and removed elements of controversy. Fainites barleyscribs 18:07, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
It works for me as being informative but not peacockery - thanks. - Eldereft (cont.) 15:31, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

references[edit]

I was thinking that the following references would be good to put in:

Becker-Weidman, A., & Shell, D., (Eds.) (2005/2009) Creating Capacity For Attachment, Wood N Barnes, Oklahoma City, OK

Hughes, D.,(2009) Attachment Focused Family Therapy, NY: Guilford Press

The Hughes book is very new and should be referenced somewhere here. The other book, while older, is relevant to the first sentence. If there are not serious objections I will do so. Abdul Faisel (talk) 23:12, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

At first glance, if you've already been reverted by 2 editors, I would say there are rather serious objections.--Ramdrake (talk) 02:40, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

But what? I wonder if there is some other agenda since they merely reverted and made false accusations as well. So, if there are no "serious," meaning objections based in some policy or rational argument, I'll go ahead and add those new references. Abdul Faisel (talk) 13:08, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

a) Everything in the article is already referenced, including to Hughes 2008 paper. b) the Wood 'n Barnes book has been rejected as a source in numerous previous discussions, and c) you are a sockpuppet of an indefinately banned user who shouldn't be editing here at all. Self publicising and promoting this little known, unvalidated therapy as "evidence based" were two of the key features of the arbitration. d) The Hughes book can't just be added to existing material which is already referenced. It only mentions dyadic developmental psychotherapy once. However, as you are a banned user I don't propose to enter into discussion with you about it.Fainites barleyscribs 13:34, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

No you are missing the point. The newest Hughes book, Attachment focused family therapy is not referenced anywhere. The text by Becker-Weidman & Shell was published by a reputable publisher and wis not a self-published text. It is the most detailed description of this treatment approach I am not a banned user and your continued statement and baseless accusation would seem to violate a Wikipedia policy (I think, but correct me if I am wrong) on casting personal aspersions...the discussions are supposed to remain focused on content and rational reasoning. so, the Becker-Weidman & Shell text seems to belong as it is the most current and comprehensive description of this treatment. And the Hughes text belongs as a current reference. Both meet the policy for verifiability: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability and for being relevant Abdul Faisel (talk) 23:24, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Since there seem to be no real objections based on a policy or custom, I will proceed with adding the supporting references as these strengthen the article and provide additional support for the statement.Abdul Faisel (talk) 01:40, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
What do these references add that the other references don't already provide? What's the added value? Verbal chat 08:33, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, the Hughes reference is quite new and demonstrates an extended utility of this approach. The B&S edited book describes the treatment with more specificity than any other text on the topic that I've seen. On the other hand, what is the strong objection to adding additional references? I see nothing in the policy or practice here that precludes this. why the vehemence??? Abdul Faisel (talk) 13:42, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

As Fainites said, the Hughes paper is already referenced in the article, and the other ref has already been discussed and rejected in a previous discussion on this talk page. That, and your behaviour being essentially identical to that of a banned user (who used to edit this subject), makes me recommend that you should try your hand at editing some other topic.--Ramdrake (talk) 20:44, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't see why the book is "rejected." What is the policy and practice basis for that? It is a legitimate book published by a legitimate publisher that describes this treatment approach. The attack on me is unfounded and reminds me of what happens at times when I go through security at airports...just because I look like someone doesn't mean I am them or subscribe to their ideology! Abdul Faisel (talk) 01:19, 4 November 2009 (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. 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 |  19:27, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

MEDRS[edit]

The claim in the lead:

  • Two studies by Arthur Becker-Weidman concluded that dyadic developmental therapy is more effective than the "usual treatment methods" for reactive attachment disorder and complex trauma.

is sourced only to primary studies. That is insufficient to support a claim about the efficacy of a medical treatment per WP:MEDRS. It doesn't matter that the claim is attributed, there is no justification for presenting the conclusion in this way, particularly in the lead. It misleads the reader into thinking that there is some accepted basis to the claim. I'll recast it into a description of the controversy. --RexxS (talk) 20:39, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Treatment Manual[edit]

Both users in this discussion have been blocked as sock puppets
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

There are two texts that comprise a treatment manual for this treatment: A treatment manual for this approach is available [1], which describes the principles, components, and phases of treatment. also, The Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy Casebook, edited by Arthur Becker-Weidman (2010), Lanham MD, published by Jason Aaronson. and see: http://www.cebc4cw.org/program/dyadic-developmental-psychotherapy/ for these citations and this treatment as a category 3 Evidence-based treatment. If there are not objections, I will add this material to the article. APSAC (talk) 00:48, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

If I don't hear any objections, I'll proceed to add this at the end of the week, OK? APSAC (talk) 13:20, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
ok additionSocialsecurity4 (talk) 18:16, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Becker-Weidman, A., (2010)Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy: Essential Practices and Methods, Lanham MD: Jason Aaronson

ok on additoins[edit]

seems fine to me why not? 69.253.125.247 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 23:15, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Dyadic developmental psychotherapy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:23, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Could someone describe the current dispute?[edit]

I've requested the article be partial protected. Could someone please discuss what is going on? Is this related to other disputes? --Ronz (talk) 00:38, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

I've been reverting the sock here since 2014, helped by Rhododendrites (who has lately found better uses of his time). He's been blocked so many times I no longer even both reporting the new accounts. The article needs long-term semi-protection. KateWishing (talk) 21:29, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
Whoa. Not sure how I accidentally removed this from my watchlist, but it was unintentional. I actually mentioned this LTA case to someone recently, mentioning that it seems to have calmed down. @KateWishing: I would welcome a message if it seems I've disappeared and an additional person would be helpful. @Ronz:, it's in Kate's link above and has been going on more or less consistently for more than a decade now. The page (or it may be that I'm thinking of one of the many related pages) has been semi-protected in the past, and the user just made some accounts with minor edits to other articles first (i.e. it didn't slow them down much, as far as I recall). EC protection would probably do the trick, but I know that's something to be used sparingly (and preferably not indefinitely)... — Rhododendrites talk \\ 21:40, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. It's more of the DPeterson edit-warring then. I couldn't recall the sock case, but suspected it was related. --Ronz (talk) 21:47, 14 November 2017 (UTC)