The relationship between efficacy and methodology in studies investigating EMDR treatment of PTSD
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The controlled treatment outcome studies that examined the efficacy of EMDR in the treatment of posttraumatic stress disorder have yielded a range of results, with the efficacy of EMDR varying across studies. The current study sought to determine if differences in outcome were related to methodological differences. The research was reviewed to identify methodological strengths, weaknesses, and empirical findings. The relationships between effect size and methodology ratings were examined, using the Gold Standard (GS) Scale (adapted from Foa & Meadows, 1997). Results indicated a significant relationship between scores on the GS Scale and effect size, with more rigorous studies according to the GS Scale reporting larger effect sizes. There was also a significant correlation between effect size and treatment fidelity. Additional methodological components not detected by the GS Scale were identified, and suggestions were made for a Revised GS Scale. We conclude by noting that methodological rigor removes noise and thereby decreases error measurement, allowing for the more accurate detection of true treatment effects in EMDR studies.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.431 | 0.681 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".