Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:59, 6 September 2012

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Cognitive behavioral therapy article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL

Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 30 days

Psychology C‑class High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology C This article has been rated as C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Medicine C‑class High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine C This article has been rated as C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

The contents of the Computerised CBT page were merged into Cognitive behavioral therapy on 2011-08-15. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page.

Page is incredibly biased in favour of CBT

There needs to be a lot more balance, and space for divergent opinions about and critique of for article to be considered valid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.39.15.150 (talk) 16:42, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

While I agree with your sentiment that we should have criticism of CBT, you need to be aware that all references and edits must satisfy WP:MEDRS and WP:WEIGHT. A news article is unacceptable here. As a starting point I would suggest that you read through the full-text of all the reviews used in the article to see if we are accurately reflecting the contents of the major reviews regarding the effectiveness of CBT and make sure we are not omitting any important caveats, then do a search on google scholar for other articles that look critically at the effectiveness of CBT and see if we are missing anything important (but bear in mind WP:WEIGHT and WP:MEDRS - you can't just include any old criticism in the article). --sciencewatcher (talk) 17:28, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

They’re should be much more critiquing of CBT particularly the INSERM meta-analysis which is allowed to go entirely unchallenged here and I don’t see how the opinions of Oliver James can be termed 'any old criticism'??? I haven’t the time to spend researching scholarly articles but at least adding the Oliver James ( a well known psychologist, journalist, author, commentator) quote at least adds some balance. Also to state without caveat that CBT simply *is* an effective for the treatment implies that it is incontrovertibly so. This does not keep with wiki standards of impartiality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.144.219.191 (talk) 23:34, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree. This is a pretty poor article overall. Malleus Fatuorum 22:46, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Ditto. I'm unimpressed with the unqualified use of "effective". The world deserves an FA on this topic. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 08:02, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

POV-Warning

The table about the effectivness of psychotherapy is POV. My arguments are listed here. The tabel must be removed. I insist, to set one of these POV-warning boxes into the article, till these table is erased. --WSC 18:11, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

That's a conclusion, not an argument. Please share your argument. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 21:02, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

My arguments listed, as I wrote, here. It's easy. Turn your cursor on the blue fonts, and klick your left mouse-button (apple useres the middel mouse button). --WSC 21:59, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I saw that. I'm no more convinced than CartoonDiablo was. As he pointed out, this is a large tertiary source, hence highly reliable. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 22:35, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

A large tertiary source, like houndreds of others. You also think: I read one table in one source and now I'm a expert of psychotherapy reserch? It's not as simple as you think. Do you also think: Without knowing the hole field of psychotherapy research, you can make usefull alteretions? If you really do, it's not possible to conviece you. --WSC 22:58, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I looked through the previous discussion, and I agree with Noleander's comment that we should just have a text summary rather than the large table. I'm not entirely convinced that this study does have thousands of citations. If you perform that google scholar search that CartoonDiablo gives, most of the results are nothing to do with the study, and the ones that do mention the study call it a 'poorly designed and questionable study', so I'm concerned that we are giving a questionable study from 2003 with few citations too much weight. --sciencewatcher (talk) 16:23, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

ACK. And it's not only the study. You can't build a chapter about a hole research aerea with houndreds and thousends of studies, meta studies, reviews and summaries by know only one pure publication. Thats nonserious and got nothing to do with an enzyklopedic work. --WSC 19:30, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

To Sciencewatcher, the only source that called it a "poorly designed and questionable study" was the International Journal of Psychoanalysis, which is a rather dubious source considering that it was cited thousands of times. The point is it's the largest study in the article, there are no other tertiary sources so far as I can tell and I don't see why it the chart shouldn't be used.

Unless someone can find a good reason for why 100+ meta studies would not suffice to create a chart (as apparently Widescreen and sciencewatcher are implying) there is no reason to exclude it. CartoonDiablo (talk) 06:20, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

The bigger the better? CartoonDiablo were do you know they use 100 meta studies? They doesn't list the studies they use as basis for they results! If you want to be pooterish, it's not even a studie. It's a rewiew. But there are much more studies, overlooks and reviews. With different results. I show you. --WSC 08:24, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

First of all yes it does list its sources and results and unless you (Widescreen) personally are a reliable source that can dismiss 111 meta studies done by a government panel then there is no argument. CartoonDiablo (talk) 20:09, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Your answer shows that you are not able to etimate the quality of scientific releases. Notably the fact it's a govermantal survey, don't create doubt at you. Thats why I always call it a survey, means not an scientific release but a helth policy survey. Thats perhaps the reason your study recieves so much critic? But that doesn't mean we can't use this superficial survey as source. But only in relation to other studies which have a better quality. But your study may not be the only study cited in the article, by ignore all the others. Thats POV. And POV is prohibited here. --WSC 10:39, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to see other editors opinion on this. I don't think it's useful Widescreen and CartoonDiablo just arguing over this. --sciencewatcher (talk) 15:23, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Other input would be helpful but I honestly don't even see an argument. Widescreen is simply asserting that it's not reliable which isn't an argument unless he himself happened to be an RS. CartoonDiablo (talk) 02:09, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

1. What means RS? 2. I never say the study isn't totaly unreliable. It recieved a lot of criticism from other scientiffic authors Thats a good advice. My main argument is still: You can't write about psychotherapy research by citing only ONE table taken form ONE single, study, because there are a lot more overviews like that. The study CD trys to push in the article is minor relevant. Trying to describe the hole field of psychotherapy research even in only one treatment is a gigant task. You are wrong when you say, you can do good enzyclopedic work, when you use only one source, by ignoring all others. Do you really think thats quality work in wikipedia? --WSC 05:44, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I chimed in earlier in support of CartoonDiablo. I just don't see what Widescreen's reasoning is, other than an arbitrary rejection of a rather good meta-study. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 02:24, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I think the case is obvious here, the issue also remains in the psychoanalysis article. For now I'll put into the research section since the study was not meant as a critique of any kind and, if anything, redeems psychoanalysis' claim to help with personality disorders. CartoonDiablo (talk) 05:59, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Regarding citations: if you do a search for the French title of the article on google scholar it gives 10 pages of results (click here). I think that is the most accurate reflection of the citations for the study, so it looks like it does have a good number of citations after all. The only question is whether it's taking up too much space in the article. One question I would ask is: does it agree with the other major reviews? If so then I don't think there is a problem with it. --sciencewatcher (talk) 15:32, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Sry Sciencewatcher. Google-Scholar includes a citatiation counter. Under the Studie, you can see the link: "Cited by 4". That means Scholar found 4 other scientific releases which cited the study you was searching for. But you found the study not once but triple! Unter the fist hit at scholar you see two futher hits. In front of it is the word . It ment the same study but another release. All in all we have 8 citatiations. For example a review releases 1994 has above 2100 citatiations. These are importend studies. Not this french survey. 10 or 8 citatiations are ridiculous in this embatted field. --WSC 15:47, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

The one thing I'd suggest is seeing if we can make the chart smaller on screen, without cutting anything. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 15:50, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

The chart is POV. We don't reduce the POV by making it smaller. --WSC 15:53, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

The content is neutral, but the size is a bit much. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 16:26, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh, really?! What makes you belive this? Your expertise of psychotherapy research? --WSC 16:35, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

To Widescreen, that's not how the argument works. The study's validity is based on the fact that it's 111 meta-studies collected by a reliable source and abides by WP:MEDRS. Your assertion that it's POV or not a RS is based on your opinion.

To StillStanding, I'll see what I can do with the formatting. CartoonDiablo (talk) 18:08, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Widescreen, I'm aware of the '4 citations' that google scholar shows - it was me who first pointed that out after all. However google scholar isn't always correct in counting citations. I think the problem here is that the article is shown as an english transation, while all the citations are in French. --sciencewatcher (talk) 18:09, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

You are right! But ther's a different between 8 or 10 citatiations and the above 1000 CartoonDiabolo asserted. It's also a different to other releases which recieved really above 1000 citatiations. My point is still the same. You can't describe the field of psychotherapy research by only one govermental survey. That's nonserious and non-enzyclopedical. That's why the survey have to be erased. --WSC 18:51, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

No, it's not '10' citations, it's 10 pages of results (144 in total). Probably not all of those are proper citations, but even 100 is pretty respectable. --sciencewatcher (talk) 21:05, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Hm? Strictly thats not correct. The Scholar searches the full text at the name of the release. The citatiation been counted by the software. But I checked the mentioned citatiations counted by scholar, and I found one source doesn't even really cites the survey! Thats remarkeble. I also think it's a problem on the french translation. But you can't count only the resuls presented by scholar. Beginning from result page 1 on you can't proove if it's really a citatiation or a dead hit. At ScienceDirect I found 63 citatiations. Thats makes the survey generally mentionable in my eyes. Of course in relation to others. --WSC 21:57, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

A offer for real

After the table was erased, I thought maybe I can help you to phrase a chapter about the evaluation of efficacy of cbt. I can help you to find sources or classify them. I got a lot of knowledge about this special research area. If you want? --WSC 18:11, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Text passage

Evaluation of effectiveness

According to a 2004 French government study conducted by INSERM, Cognitive behavioral therapy was the most effective therapy as compared to psychoanalysis and family or couples therapy.

The study used meta-analysis of over a hundred secondary studies to find some level of effectiveness that was either "proven" or "presumed" to exist. Of the treatments CBT was found to be presumed or proven effective at treating schizophrenia, depression, bipolar disorder, panic disorder, post-traumatic stress, anxiety disorders, bulimia, anorexia, personality disorders and alcohol dependency.

I just underlined all wrong statments. --WSC 05:06, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

With all due respect, I've been to WP:DRM so I know a few things about it. First, it's not binding. Second, it doesn't replace consensus. Third, it's often completely worthless. I suggest you try WP:RFC, with the options being:

• C-Class psychology articles
• High-importance psychology articles
• WikiProject Psychology articles
• C-Class medicine articles
• High-importance medicine articles
• All WikiProject Medicine pages