This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Sciencewatcher (talk | contribs) at 17:28, 23 August 2012 (→Page is incredibly biased in favour of CBT). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 17:28, 23 August 2012 by Sciencewatcher (talk | contribs) (→Page is incredibly biased in favour of CBT)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)| 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. |
|
| 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 | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 | Medicine C‑class High‑importance | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 | 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. |
No limits to effectiveness of CBT?
Everything I read about CBT extols its virtues but I can find little comment here on whether it's effectiveness is limited and under what circumstances. Yet I do remember reading isolated articles to that effect in the past.
Yes, the article lists a number of psychological problems that CBT is successful with but this is a sales approach. A scientific approach would be to lay out those areas where success has been achieved (and to what degree) and those where it has not.
Is CBT less effective for some people than for others? Does success may vary according to such factors as education level, or age or gender?
The article would appear to be more balanced if such questions were granted a separate section and were at least posed, even if (in the current atmosphere of wild enthusiasm for CBT) they haven't been answered yet.
As with all Misplaced Pages articles, I admire the care and work that has already gone into preparing what is here. Thanks --174.7.29.185 (talk) 16:12, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Pavlov's theory was not "behaviorist"
"It was during the period 1950 to 1970 that behavioral therapy became widely utilized by researchers in the United States, the United Kingdom, and South Africa, who were inspired by the behaviorist learning theory of Ivan Pavlov, John B. Watson, and Clark L. Hull".
Pavlov's theory can by no means be labeled as behaviorist. Although Watson based his theory (Behaviorism) on Pavlov's research, Pavlov himself was not a behaviorist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.109.165.103 (talk) 05:54, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
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)