Ironson et al. (2002) stated in their article that the active EMDR session followed Shapiro's proposed protocol and included the eight levels described in her book. After making a comfortable position and distance for the repetitive hand movements of EMDR as well as imaginary safe places, the patient was asked to describe the worst part of the trauma and to develop a negative knowledge about himself involved in the trauma. Patients were then asked to create alternative positive perceptions and to explain how they believed in the validity of the knowledge scale. Finally, the patient was asked to draw a picture depicting sensitive trauma, negative perceptions, and emotional and physical sensations. Moreover, a baseline SUDS rating was then obtained. In the phase of desensitization, the patient followed the movement of therapist’s fingers (to yield back and forth eye movement), although primarily the negative cognition, the image as well as physical sensations are restored in the human mind. At the end of each eye movement, the patient is asked to take a deep breath and report what happened.
In the next section of the desensitization episode, after several consecutive sets, the SUDS is tested. If the SUDS decrease significantly (close to 0), the therapist will “install” positive knowledge that is associated with eye movements as well as traumatic images. Along with that, a check on the VOC was completed after it arisen to ensure it was higher (6 or 7). Besides, all other phases of the EMDR protocol, such as body scanning, revaluation, and closure have been completed. As mentioned earlier, the results of their article indicated that PE and EMDR both are equally effective in reducing PTSD symptoms and depression. Also, the treatment gain is upheld at follow-up. But there are important differences for further investigation. First, EMDR was more likely than PE to reduce PTSD symptoms by 70% after three active treatment sessions: seven out of ten EMDR supplements had increased satisfaction with PE efficiency.
In other words, Taylor et al. (2003) carried out a study on “Comparative efficacy, speed, and adverse effects of three PTSD treatments” and their article focused on Intent-to-treat analysis for four levels of PTSD symptoms was performed based on all 60 participants using the latest treatment outcome diagnosis. Their studies have different strengths and limitations. In the case of energy, their research met each one of Foa and Meadows’ (1997) gold standards for sound treatment outcome research appropriately. The authors used explicit target symptoms, including a valid and reliable measure, adequately trained assessors, blind evaluators, manualized, replicable, and specific treatments, evaluation of treatment adherence as well as unbiased assignment to treatment. Some physicians, on the advice of Foya and Modias, also provide treatments to separate treatment effects from our treatment effects. To the best of your knowledge, this is the first EMDR survey of PTSD that meets the Foa and Meadows gold standards.
Although study was not aimed to examine treatment processes, investigations suggest a variety of ways to identify important components of care. It is important to emphasize the importance of the registry in educating PTSD patients to avoid the effects of mild therapy and the dangers of dangerous, traumatic stimuli (such as data correction), to ask whether funding relaxation and EMDR training are essential components. As mentioned in the introduction, relaxation can be achieved by reducing hyperarousal; Once people feel calm, he doesn’t like traumatic stimuli. In other words, relaxation exercises can aid in vivo exposure, despite the exposure exercises given by physicians. This can be tested by comparing (a) relaxation exercises and anti-exposure instructions (b) with relaxation exercises without explicit exposure instructions.
If relaxation exercises can be used to increase natural exposure, the effect of relaxation should be to reduce anti-exposure guidelines. This may be true in the case of EMDR: the evidence shows that eye movement and its name differ from treatment, which raises doubts about the value of other pendulum stimuli used in EMDR, such as the lack of confidence to wait and touch. The effects of EMDR are many. May be due to the illusion of moments which may help to create vivo light. There is some evidence to suggest that EMDR (i.e. Devilly, in press) plays a crucial role. Besides, the effect of naturalistic in vivo acquaintance would be evaluated by comparing EMDR with anti-exposure instruction (such as instructions to evade every form of in vivo exposure). Moreover, the significance of naturalistic in vivo exposure could be discovered by the level to which the effectiveness of EMDR is weakened when such exposure is decreased.
The studies by Ironson et al. (2002) and by Taylor et al. (2003) compared Eye Movement Desensitisation and Reprocessing (EMDR) with exposure therapy for the treatment of Posttraumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). In the context of the study Ironson et al. (2002), authors stated that the first EMDR, SUDS may be higher than the PE report at baseline. The EMDR protocol is configured to fully activate all sensitive somatic components of memory at the beginning of a session. The patient is instructed to visualize an image of the trauma (the patient usually imagines the saddest place). This can lead to higher initial SEDS scores. At the beginning of the PE session, patients are encouraged to talk about trauma, but it is advisable to moderate this first comfortable session. Since PE patients have control where they start, many begin by describing events that begin with trauma that do not begin at the most annoying stage. This can lead to an average initial SUDS score. According to the data from the first session EMDR patients were at risk, including EMDR patients. At the end of the initial session, SUDS were assessed at memorable target events and were significantly lower in PE patients than in EMDR patients.
On the other hand, Taylor et al. (2003) stated that, The effects of EMDR can often result from hypothetical exposure during a session and can result in natural sedation. Some evidence suggests that EMDR (e.g. devil, press) plays an important role. The natural effects of in vivo exposure can be assessed by comparing EMDR (e.g., regular use) with antipax instructions (e.g., instructions to avoid all types of in vivo exposure).
Ironson, G., Freund, B., Strauss, J. L., & Williams, J. (2002). Comparison of two treatments for traumatic stress: A community‐based study of EMDR and prolonged exposure. Journal of clinical psychology, 58(1), 113-128.
Taylor, S., Thordarson, D. S., Maxfield, L., Fedoroff, I. C., Lovell, K., & Ogrodniczuk, J. (2003). Comparative efficacy, speed, and adverse effects of three PTSD treatments: exposure therapy, EMDR, and relaxation training. Journal of consulting and clinical psychology, 71(2), 330.
Remember, at the center of any academic work, lies clarity and evidence. Should you need further assistance, do look up to our Psychology Assignment Help
Proofreading and Editing$9.00Per Page
Consultation with Expert$35.00Per Hour
Live Session 1-on-1$40.00Per 30 min.
Doing your Assignment with our resources is simple, take Expert assistance to ensure HD Grades. Here you Go....