Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:30, 14 October 2012

This article was on the Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive for the week of October 17, 2007.

Psychology C‑class Top‑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. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Medicine C‑class Mid‑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. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

2003-2005 2005-2010

Verification

Needs additional citations for Verifiability, tagged since June 2009.

Original Research

May contain original research, tagged since May 2008.

Criticism/Controversy

The Criticism or Controversy section(s) may not be from a neutral point of view, tagged since November 2009

2010 Comments

These are comments made in 2010 that may still be up for discussion

A Very Poor Article That Smells Funny

Short note re: Victorian era. Do check your history on this. I'm not at present able to recollect any good sources, but I remember from undergraduate studies that it was the Edwardian era that was sexually repressive. The Victorians not so much. A look through any decent history of the period will identify as much. If anyone is still reading these things, that is.--Slenney (talk) 22:17, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

An even more belated comment. Freud developed psychoanalysis in Vienna at the very end of the nineteenth century, so effectively from the beginning of the twentieth century. This has nothing to do with England. Far from sexual repression being a feature of that era in Vienna, sexual matters were openly discussed, and featured in popular books and plays.Esterson (talk) 08:16, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Unclear

I suppose this makes sense if it were clarified:

Some more recent forms of psychoanalysis seek, among other things, to help patients gain self-esteem through greater trust of the self, overcome the fear of death and its effects on current behavior, and maintain several relationships that appear to be incompatible.

Fred Bauder 17:34, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Under the "Research" section, this sentence appears: "In the past 30 years or so, the criticisms have centered on the issue of empirical verification, in spite of many empirical, prospective research studies that have been empirically validated." This doesn't make sense as written, to refer to empirical studies that have been empirically validated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.133.188.104 (talk) 15:11, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Comments

The article also contains statements to the effect that the lack of empirical research has and is being rectified. This is just plain untrue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.210.161.133 (talk) 10:53, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I had a friend who had to undergo it to become a child psychotherapist and it was weekly for 5 years at £125 a week. Actually it took her 7 years as the analyst said she was "stuck". Thats why its not available on the NHS! Fainites scribs 20:44, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Because of Your friend? Really?95.89.164.91 (talk) 21:07, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the article is biased in favor of p/a. afaik it is commonly accepted in mainstream scientific psychology that p/a is pseudoscience. As this is only mentioned in the criticism section, it creates the appearance that p/a is commonly accepted as true but has just a few critics. O.mangold (talk) 08:48, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Irrelevant Criticisms

While, obviously, an article on the subject of Sigmund Freud himself might be enlightened by noting the allegations of an inherent fascistic element to his ideas, I fail to see their relevance in regards to the subject of Psychoanalysis itself. In fact, arguments could be presented identifying the both the quotation and its inclusion in the article as one of several species of Ad Hominem. Neither the political disposition and attitudes of the discipline's practitioners, or the postulated compatibility of the discipline itself to an ill-favored political system have any significance on an objective judgment of it's validity regardless of their validity otherwise. A Science, however disputed in it's legitimacy, can only judged on its provability-- criticisms of it's application are attached to those who have applied it. I would, however, be willing to accept that I simply failed to comprehend this argument in some way. In this case I would only protest that some nuance or ambiguity in the phrasing be rethought. Lky 76.214.49.166 (talk) 22:52, 14 February 2010 (UTC) Appended to reflect newly registered account.... Badfolk (talk) 22:59, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Micropsychoanalysis and Silvio Fanti

I would like to let anyone know about my intention of including micropsychoanalysis in the theories section. Micropsychoanalysis was founded by Silvio Fanti in Switzerland in the 1950s. It is a very innovative school of psychoanalysis popular in Switzerland, France and norther Italy. I will wait a few days for comments and reactions and then I will add the entry. I hope anyone agrees and the entry is welcomed. Thank you. --Thespanishdub (talk) 17:27, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

The following link may deserve your attention es:Misplaced Pages:Consultas_de_borrado/Micropsicoanálisis This article has been deleted from es because of not being neutral and being a primary source instead.--Rapel (talk) 22:08, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I reinserted the chapter "Micropsychoanalysis" that had been deleted by a user without providing valid sources. Thanks Bluebird33 (talk) 11:09, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Jung

Jung has not been mentioned in the article. Neither have other psychoanalysts been mentioned. Fellowscientist (talk) 17:40, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. SylvesterSherman (talk) 06:15, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

History 1890s

Some paragraphs in the History 1890s section contained inaccurate information, and I have replaced them with three new paragraphs. Esterson (talk) 18:01, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Barbara Milrod research ???

There is on research by Barbara Milrod that is to empirically support Freud's ideas. I've searched the web and found nothing on that. However I found Barbara Milrod's page () and don't see there any publications on this topic.

Reimut Reiche, Germany

Reimut Reiche is a well-known psychoanalyst in Germany.

He has written the book:

Psychoanalyse und Klassenkampf - Psychoanalysis and Class Struggle.

http://en.wikipedia.org/Reimut_Reiche

"Unscientific" as the article's fourth word.

I have added a few days ago, in the very beginning of the article, that psychoanalysis is unscientific. Since then, the term "unscientific" has been replaced by "questionably scientific". I am opening up this discussion, because after doing so, I am going to put back in place the term "unscientific", but I do respect your opinions, which is why I open up this discussion here. Science is the discipline of gathering knowledge via scientific method. According to Webster, scientific method is " principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses". Freud did not employ such a method, as his "experiments" were based on the study of a very very little amount of volunteers. Psychoanalysis, like homeopathy and many other "alternative sciences", has spread like wildfire. Nevertheless, psychoanalysis is not science. I am not saying the subconscious does not exist, I am saying that sufficient proof (if any at all) has not been brought to support this idea. If it had, psychoanalysis would be a recognized subdomain of scientific psychology.

But it is not. Some people "believe" in psychoanalysis, some don't. Science is not a domain where one can argue whether or not a theory applies the scientific method. It is not questionable. A thing either applies the scientific method, or it doesn't. Psychoanalysis does not, and is therefore unscientific. Nicolas M. Perrault (talk) 00:55, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Your edits violate WP:NPOV, and should be reverted. No doubt it can be sourced that psychoanalysis is unscientific, just as it could be sourced that it is scientific; likewise, we could source the statement that Freud was a charlatan, or that he was the greatest scientific genius of the 20th century. It isn't Misplaced Pages's job to take sides on issues like this, but to neutrally present the main published views. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 02:24, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

You might find it helpful to know that the Arbitration Committee held a case related to this issue a few years ago; its ruling can be found here. On the subject of psychoanalysis, it stated that, "Theories which have a substantial following, such as psychoanalysis, but which some critics allege to be pseudoscience, may contain information to that effect, but generally should not be so characterized." So, it would be fine to say somewhere in the lead that critics have argued that psychoanalysis isn't a science or scientific in any way, but we can't assert that as fact or present it as Misplaced Pages's view. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 02:30, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I'd moved the info out of the lead before reading. Obviously doesn't belong there. Szzuk (talk)

It doesn't make sense to define something by what it isn't. I have moved the question of scientificness further down in the first paragraph. I also agree that the article should not generally describe opinions about the validity of psychoanalysis as fact - in so far as anyone has claimed that psychoanalysis is scientific we can describe the debate between them and those who deny the scientific basis of the theory. We do not need to describe the theory as "unscientific". Just like we don't define astrology or christianity as "unscientific" theories in the lead of those articles.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:36, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

• Those comments violate WP:Lead, the information isn't discussed in the article body. It's a simple criticism and has been placed in the criticism secion. Szzuk (talk) 16:45, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

When there is a criticism section that also means that per WP:LEAD, the lead must give a summary of the criticisms...·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:49, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

• • This isn't a featured or even good article. Its a fairly bad one that doesn't need to look worse. I can add a few words if you wish. Szzuk (talk) 16:52, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

But your argument was non-conformity with WP:LEAD. I agree its a bad article and with your pithy wording.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:11, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Pithy wording is the best solution in the circumstances. I re-organised the criticism section and removed the banner it had some time ago, it required fairly substantial deletions so I'm aware of the problem. I've no particular answer other than it requires more thought than I have time to give it, I may come back to it. Szzuk (talk) 18:20, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Reputation

Given the rising support for psychoanalysis in neuro-science and recent studies showing PsA as a treatment for diseases as depression and personality disorder to have additional and longer lasting effects than shorter treatments, the passage in the introduction ("Today, the worldwide reputation of psychoanalysis has declined to a low ebb. Its theories have been criticised on numerous fronts including the view that they constitute pseudo-science, but psychoanalysis still has many practitioners of various schools.") should be deleted or modified. 84.180.251.71 (talk) 19:32, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I removed the first statement before seeing your comment, since it struck me as a bit fatuous, but the second statement seems to be reasonable enough even if there is a resurgence. --Tyrannus Mundi (talk) 18:41, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Checklist

CartoonDiablo is including a checklist based on a single french study comparing three kinds of therapy. He/she is arguing that since the study supposedly passes WP:MEDRS it has to be included. That of course is not what WP:MEDRS means - that policy shows that sources that don't live up to the MEDRS standard cannot be included - it foes not say that sources that do must be included. Inclusion of any material is subject to consensus. I do not believe the table should be included because it gives undue weight to a single study, it is also based on the flawed assumption that psychoanalysis is a form of therapy which it is not necessarily (that would be psychotherapy). It is not the case that psychoanalysis is primarily a clinical therapeutic theory - it cannot be simply defined by its clinical results in a checklist. Furthermore if we are to include the french study it could be much better communciated in the form of one or two prose sentences - the checklist is a hhuge amount of undue weight to this particular study and its conception of what psychoanalysis should be able to do.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:18, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Since I've addressed quality concerns on the CBT discussion let me summarize by saying that it is a tertiary source and quite possible the largest evaluation of psychological effectiveness that exists as it reviews dozens of meta-studies.

Regarding consensus, consensus is not required before adding in information and I think if it was used to exclude the largest source on the material available it wouldn't be used properly as well. You cannot use consensus for exclusion of an obvious RS and I think the chart has the proper weight given that it reflects the largest source of the material thus far. CartoonDiablo (talk) 15:01, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

No it is not required before adding it, but it is required before re-adding it when contested by several editors.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:03, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

The study is already mentioned in the criticism section with about as much weight as it deserves. The amount of weight that the 8 year old study should be allootted is of course determined by the amount of weight that the study receives in descriptions of criticism of psychoanalysis. If you can show that recent critiques of psychoanalysis feature this study prominently then we could do it as well. I think you can't because other types of critiques (such as the critique of male chauvinism and exaggerated focus on sexuality) are much more prominent. This is because psychoanalysis is not primarily a clinical discipline - its aim is to understand the mind, not necessarily to cure it - that is only an incidental aspect of psychoanalysis.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:09, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

See my reply in the CBT talk addressing citations. Whether or not psychoanalysis is supposed to be used clinically is completely irrelevant to the validity of the study; the fact is psychoanalysis is used clinically and the study sought to evaluate its effectiveness.

My point is consensus that the chart should be excluded is incorrect because it is due weight, the study is cited by hundreds if not over a thousand and is the single largest evaluation of psychotheraputic effectiveness that there is (unless someone happens to find any other territary sources that review dozens of meta-sources). CartoonDiablo (talk) 16:40, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

yes it is irrelevant to the validity of the study, but not to the relevance of the study to this article. Consensus is not incorrect - consensus is the only way to determine what is correct here on wikipedia. There is no grounds on which something can be included in an article unless there is consensus to do so. Now as long as it is just you and me contradicting eachother there is no possibility of consensus, so either we must get more people to participate in the discussion or try to work towards a compromise. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:47, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

In the context of the article it's the same, unless psychoanalysis wasn't used as a form of therapy then the criticism of effectiveness would be irrelevant. As it stands, it is used as a therapy so the criticism is relevant.

I've said numerous times, there can be reasons for why the chart should be excluded but none of them seem to occur here or in the CBT article. Unless you can find another large tertiary or secondary source questioning its findings, then the chart has proper weight and validity given that academically it has more weight then any other study on the subject.

Right now it seems to be excluded for improper use of WP:Weight and Misplaced Pages:Relevance. I'll wait for a third opinion but if it upholds the consensus on CBT or if no third opinion arrives in the foreseeable future, I'll go to dispute resolution. CartoonDiablo (talk) 20:23, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Getting more input is dispute resolution, and there is nothing improper in arguing that including a huge table with a checklist gives undue weight to the clinical aspects of psychoanalysis. What you can do is to find sources about psychoanalysis that present its clinical results in the way that you propose. If you can show me that there are other sources about psychoanalysis that does that that would go a long way towards convincing me that it is not undue weight to include it. Merely repeating that you don't think it is undue weight isn't very convincing I'm afraid. I don't need to find another tertiary source that questions its findings, because I am not arguing that the findings are wrong, I am arguing that devoting a large table to them gives undue weight to one particular criticism out of the many many criticisms of psychoanalysis that exist.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:42, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Maunus. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 21:03, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

What about the overview by shedler 2009? --WSC 21:25, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Psychodynamic psychotherapy != Psychoanalysis. The issue I have is that the topic of this artic le is very broad including many different psychoanalytic approaches only some of which are clinical and these are evaluations of specific therapeutic applications of specific psychoanalytical frameworks. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:09, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

The Article describes not only a "classical" psa. but the modern developments of psychoanalysis. A part of these developments are psychodynamic psychotherapies. The author itself wrote: "I use the terms psychoanalytic and psychodynamic interchangeably." To separate Psychoanalysis & PP would be artificial. At least in this case. --WSC 07:00, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

To Polisher, on what? To Widescreen and Maunus, both types fall under the umbrella of this article and fit the broadness that Widescreen sees as necciessary.

Regarding everything else see the discussion on CBT. CartoonDiablo (talk) 22:00, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Basic Tenets

I doubt that human behavior being determined by drives is still a basic tenet of modern Psychoanalysis. The whole list in the introdution should be updated. 46.237.197.25 (talk) 16:36, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

The table of the study (again)

Once again we're arguing over the table and again let me say that it should be included. Since the prior discussion wasn't conclusive, let me again start by saying the study is the single largest study cited in the article, it used 100+ secondary studies meaning it looked at tens of thousands of people. It was even verified as abiding by WP:MEDRS in the previous discussion. Aside from Widescreen's assertion that it's a "small study" (ie the largest study in the entire article) I don't see any valid reason to exclude it. CartoonDiablo (talk) 21:46, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Dear CartoonDiablo, all aspects have already been mentioned. Remember: and . My arguments are still the same. Why do I have to demonstrate them again?

But I will assume good faith. You found a little Study which includes a table you maybe find helpfull, because it's a tertiary source. Tertiary sources count as particularly good sources. You also claim, this survey was often cited (more than 100 times).

1. My main argument is, that you try to push ONE table, taken by ONE govermental survey into the articles. But there are houndreds of studys like this in the field of psychotherapy reserch. Also tertiary sources but much more cited than the one you try to present. Studys which get much more attention in scientistic circles than yours. I gave you some examples. But you claim these excellent studies are not tertiary sources. It seems to me you try to ignore other results.
2. Your survey was just 7 times cited by other scientific authors. By tricking the citatiation databases I found only 7 (If I remember correctly. It's verifiable). If I don't use these tricks, you can only find 2 cites. That means compared to other tertiary and secondary studies in this research area, your stuy is marginal. But you try to present it as ONLY source to write about the effectivness of Psychotherapie in Misplaced Pages. What about the other results? Why is your source so much better than all the rest. And we are talking about houndreds of studies.
3. Misplaced Pages is a Enzyklopedia. We try to inform our readers about a hole area of science. Not only about one single marginal study. If you think everything is correct, just becouse you can find a source by ignoring all others, I think you don't get the point what NPOV means. Maybe you know only one study. But thats your special point of view. I know a lot more than only one table taken by only one study. And I know, the results, you try to present are doubious. Just becouse there are other results in psychotherapy reserch.

Please CartoonDiabolo, think about the foundations of our project. It's not our purpose to spread wrong information. --WSC 18:00, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Find a larger study cited in the article. There is not a bigger study that looked at more people or cited more secondary sources. Unless you can find one, your argument that it's a "little study" has absolutely no validity whatsoever. To the other points:

1. No it's based on 111 meta studies, making it a tertiary source, not just "one study".
2. That's because you incorrectly spelled "psychotherapie" (the correct spelling is "psychotherapy") as the actual results say otherwise.
3. Yes and a chart based on 111 meta studies is completely reliable and informative. CartoonDiablo (talk) 06:23, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

"Find a larger study cited in the article." - This isn't a argument. Our article is not the foundation for anything. There are much better sources been not cited in our article. Thats why our article is poor and one sided.

1. Maybe it's based an 111 meta studies. Thats no quality warranty. Especially when there are much more studies like that. And much better.
2. In the futher discussion I show you, thats not tru! . You find results for psychotherapy AND INSERM. That dosen't mean they cited your study.
3. Thats what you say. I say something else entirely. The different is: I got a clue of psychotherapy research. --WSC 08:47, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

So you, Widescreen, you personally have the expertise to say that 111 meta studies collected by a government panel is inaccurate? Misplaced Pages policy is based on WP:MEDRS and WP:RS and by those clearly a table based the study is justified. And no, no matter how you search for it you get at least a thousand results. And again citations are irrelevant, even if the study had less than 10 citations it wouldn't change the fact that it's based on 111 meta studies collected by a government panel on health. CartoonDiablo (talk) 20:05, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

No, I havn't. But I have the expertise, to know much more studies than the one you try to push into the article. And I have the expertise to know scientiffic standards to classify an scientiffic release. It doesn't matter how much meta studies your study go back to. It's necessary by any study to have basic scientiffic standars, like to mention the studies they have taken as foundation for there results. I didn't found a list of studies the autors of your study used. You also won't accept that there are much more studies with other results but with higher quality and much more citatiation. As example I've showed you this book with more than 1700 citatiations by other scientific authors. You think you found a single study seems to display the results you want to see and all the encyclopaedical work is done. But thats a mistake.

Futhermore you search for "psychotherapy" and "INSERM". I still count only 7 citatiations. Once again your strategy is superficial, non-scientific and non-encyclopaedical and got only one aim: overstate the relevance of this study. --WSC 10:56, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

In that case you have no argument for excluding the chart. The fact is the chart isn't based on what I think the effectiveness is, it's based on 111 meta-studies collected by an RS which is well above what WP:MEDRS requires. However your only argument is how accurate you think the study and since you are not a scientific expert or RS, the argument is completely worthless.

And again citations are irrelevent to the fact that it's 111 meta-studies collected by a scientific RS. Unless you have an actual argument I'll reinstate the content sometime soon. CartoonDiablo (talk) 02:16, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

You still dosen't realize, how wide the field of psychotherapy research is. I told you a dozend times there are much more overlooks, guidlines like that. Besides, your study recieved a lot of criticism from other scientific authors. And there are a lot of more arguments to exclude the study. For example the fact that the studie only point on special diseases. Not a generally effectivness. The quantity of studies being evaluated doesen't matter if the quality of evaluation is lousy. For example, the authors of the study doesn't even cited the studies they take as basis for they results. I've scan the study but didn't found any evidence how much studies they have evaluated. Not the number 111 Studies. I don't know were you take this information from, when you say the basis are 111 Meta-analysis? Please tell me! --WSC 05:34, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

You're seriously edit warring over this pretty much as soon as it's unprotected? May I offer a suggestions? Whether the table is currently included or not, discuss it here on the talk page (which you should have been doing the last 3 days) until a decision has been made. If you need to, get a third opinion or start a RFC or even post to the dispute resolution noticeboard. Because edit warring over this is pretty lame. Template:Mytwocents -Nathan Johnson (talk) 13:20, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Thx but there was a discussion an dispute resolution noticeboard with an, as I think, clear conclusion. see for yourself! Than CD holds still for a copple of month and trys to push the table again into the article. How often do I have to discuss this? Till he gets enouth? --WSC 13:41, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

For the nth time there was no decision in that dispute resolution, (it was closed from lack of activity) and the only argument given is Widescreen's opinion. Since this dragging out again It'll go to dispute resolution again. CartoonDiablo (talk) 15:56, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

The problem is, I speak into a empty chamber. Nobodys there who knows enogh to value this little study right. So we can discuss this for years. A solution would be, you would lean about psychotherapy research. And not only have a knowledge about ONE single survey. If you had knowledge about that field, you wouldn't write such nonsese like that. --WSC 16:11, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

For reference here is the dispute resolution discussion. CartoonDiablo (talk) 16:16, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Ok that might be helpfull. --WSC 16:19, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

French survey third round

The Textpassage is still deficient. After CartoonDiablo add some more studies the heading is no longer fallacious. But the rest of my criticism is still current:

1. The sentence: "Cognitive behavioral therapy was the most effective therapy as compared to psychoanalysis and family or couples therapy." Thats not true. If you want to describe a short approach it's rather: "The survey found that CBT is more effective as psa and ft in specific disorders and specific treatment conditions." (by ignoring about 70 studies in 2004)
2. "The study used meta-analysis of over a hundred secondary studies" This sentence doesn't have a source. The french survey got such a bad quality, they doesn't list the studies they choose for there review or even cited them. I know some meta-analysis contains only 8 or 10 single rtc's. What makes the author sure, that the survey evaluated over a houndred secondary studies? Further, the study also use rct's if no meta-analysis was found. Or, I wouldn't to rule out that possibilitie, I didn't found a list or citatiation of the used studies. But meanwhile I've read the study (compulsorily) in parts. Thats the reason why the statement "of over a hundred secondary studies" is completeley imaginary. (there are a much more quality lecks)
3. "secondary studies" This term is wrong if you ask me. I know, en:wp calls meta-analyses AND peer-reviewed articles Secondary_source#In_science_and_medicine (without a source!). But in de:wp you can read somthing different. In de:wp you can read secondary sources are overviews which based on so called primary sources. I saw how the anglophone Misplaced Pages works, just in this article here, an I trust the german more...
4. "to find some level of effectiveness" A bit fussy, but these are no "levels" of effectiveness but a statement if the treatment is proven (effective) or presumed (effectiv). Levels of efficacy are more differentiated. But, just as I said, a bit fussy if you see the other serious shortcomings of the text.
5. "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." The main fault on this sentence is that he doesn't term the exact conditions of the treatment which was evaluated. E.g. "Schizophrenia (acute phase) with medical drugs" or "Depression, hospitalised on antidepressants" and so on.

There was been add a picture what replaces the table just been removed. You can't take Picture of the table seriously. This Picture of the table can't be found at the source so he was homemade by the user. The question is: Why was this special Table selected? I know much better studies wich also have tables and beeing much more cited by other scientists than this special survey was. I claim that this table was selected and refused by a picture shows the same as the table, to overstate the efficacy of CBT. The results of psychotherapy research as not as simple the table/picture suggest. If you wan't a pretty good chapter about the efficacy you have to give futher explanations. --WSC 17:17, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Is there one place where this discussion is taking place? I think it is very dubious to give such prominence to one study, especially when there is a substantial debate about the 'evidence' base for CBT. ----Snowded 03:31, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Psychoanalysis#To_help_update.2Frevise_Evaluation_of_effectiveness_etc_per_WP:MEDRS, below. —MistyMorn (talk) 18:57, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 29 September 2012

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

A small copyedit:

• In the first sentence of the Evaluation of effectiveness, "Several meta-analysis..." should read "Several meta-analyses..."

Thank you, MistyMorn (talk) 14:00, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, so  Done but without the piped link - meta-analyses already exists as a redirect to the appropriate page. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:15, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, —MistyMorn (talk) 15:20, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

To help update/revise Evaluation of effectiveness etc per WP:MEDRS

To update this section per WP:MEDRS, please note:

• The conclusions of the 2001 Cochrane review regarding schizophrenia were found to be up to date in 2009 .
• The Cochrane review of "Psychological interventions for those who have sexually offended or are at risk of offending" is currently withdrawn .
• A currently uncited meta-analysis on the effectiveness of long-term psychodynamic psychotherapy (including psychoanalysis) originally published in JAMA in 2008 concluded that "There is evidence that LTPP is an effective treatment for complex mental disorders." The work has been methodologically reviewed . The meta-analysis has recently been updated .

Some more general considerations:

• The article by de Maat et al , published in a minor journal at the time not indexed by Medline , has been given undue weight. I also have methodological concerns about related studies published by the same group (eg ), and I feel it's better to stick to core journals such as JAMA. Indeed, the entire first paragraph of the section needs reevaluation (to an outsider, it looks suspiciously like the result of edit warring).
• On editorial grounds, the final paragraph of the Evaluation of effectiveness section (There are different forms of psychoanalysis and ... Other psychoanalytic schools include the Kleinian, Lacanian, and Winnicottian schools.) appear to be misplaced as it has nothing directly to do with effectiveness.
• By contrast, he opening paragraph of the Research section is focused on efficacy/effectiveness, but seems to ignore WP:MEDRS. I think it should be removed.
• I have similar concerns about two sentence in the Evaluation of effectiveness section which are currently sourced with a dead link: Experiences of psychoanalysts and psychoanalytic psychotherapists and research into infant and child development have led to new insights. Theories have been further developed and the results of empirical research are now more integrated in the psychoanalytic theory.
• The entire second paragraph (beginning Research on psychodynamic treatment of some populations...) also needs to be overhauled per WP:MEDRS. Weight seems to be given to "Initial Results from the Schizophrenia Patient Outcomes Research Team (PORT) Client Survey" from 1998 , while the strongest available current evidence for schizophrenia (from the Cochrane review) is presented as a POV: Others argue that supporting empirical data already exist.
• There's also an unreferenced claim that Dr. Hyman Spotnitz and the practitioners of his theory known as Modern Psychoanalysis, a specific sub-specialty, still report (2007) much success in using their enhanced version of psychoanalytic technique in the treatment of schizophrenia. I have been unable to find on PubMed any source authored by Spotnitz regarding effectiveness that satisfies WP:MEDRS.

Useful book sources on effectiveness and cost-effectiveness:

• What Works with Children, Adolescents, and Adults? A Review of Research on the Effectiveness of Psychotherapy (Alan Carr, 2008)
• Psychotherapy Is Worth It: A Comprehensive Review of Its Cost-Effectiveness (ed Susan G. Lazar, 2010)

I hope this helps, —MistyMorn (talk) 15:12, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

I made this independent review, per WP:MEDRS two weeks ago while the page was completely protected. I see the Evaluation of effectiveness section is now being edited again. Is there consensus for the updates/changes suggested above? —MistyMorn (talk) 18:33, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

My assessment:

1. The first de Maat studie is good rated. But the second published in harv rev psychiatry (citation index 2.197) seems to be valid.
2. The sentence: "Experiences of psychoanalysts and psychoanalytic psychotherapists and research into infant and child development have led to new insights. Theories have been further developed and the results of empirical research are now more integrated in the psychoanalytic theory." Is nothing but correct. But not good sourced. My suggestion as source is: this book.

Please see WP:NONENG. Use of sources in languages other than English is contemplated on en.wp but not encouraged unless there's a gap in the reliable sources available in the English language. —MistyMorn (talk) 18:54, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

1. Hyman Spotnitz was not found at PubMed. That doesen't mean he don't exist! I've never heard of him, but he seems to be a popular author: That doesen't mean he have to mentioned.

Futher I think it's pointless to discuss single studies in this wide field. We should select some current textbooks and overviews to estimate the efficacy. So we don't have to discuss if any of this studies hit the MEDRS criterias. An current textbook makes this unnecessary. --WSC 08:54, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Up-to-date Cochrane reviews definitely meet WP:MEDRS and are an excellent source for best evidence of efficacy. Given their high methodological quality, pertinent systematic reviews and meta-analyses from this source , are generally ranked at the top of the hierarchy of evidence, and deserve to be weighted accordingly. While other systematic reviews of primary studies (with/without meta-analyses) are also appropriate secondary sources for evidence of effectiveness, their methodological quality does vary; MEDRS recommends using core journals where possible . As regards books, I've had a look at Carr 2009 , including the section on meta-analyses and reviews of "Psychodynamic psychotherapy" (starting on page 33), which I agree could be helpful. (No mention of Spotnitz in this book either.)

Imo, a key goal here should be to reframe this section per MEDRS, rather than tunneling editorial attention onto a single source (eg ). —MistyMorn (talk) 18:54, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't know Cochrane review. Thats why I'm cautious. I know a not good controlled RTC, what compared STPP with CBT. CBT was more effective than STPP but not significant. It's a iranian study (whatever that means) reviewed by leichsenring. Relevant for schizophrenia is futher: Grawe 1994 , Karon and Vandenbos 1972 ; Mueser und Berenbaum 1990 .

Your sources are good. Alan Carr seems to be relevant and usefull. But it's 3 years old. You can find a lot good sources if you want to. --WSC 19:30, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages pages with to-do lists
• C-Class psychology articles
• Top-importance psychology articles
• WikiProject Psychology articles
• C-Class medicine articles
• Mid-importance medicine articles
• All WikiProject Medicine pages