Talk:Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Direct any additional comments to the current talk page.

Contents

Copyright

This is my article and I am the holder of the copyright. When the article was previously printed I allowed printing of the article, but retained ownership of the copyright.

Arthur Becker-Weidman, Ph.D., Center For Family Development 716-810-0790 AWeidman@Concentric.net

The comment above relates to an earlier version of the article, which had been marked as a possible copyright infringement. It was published on another site, but the assertion seems genuine enough to me. During the review, User:AWeidman followed the procedure given for rewriting the article on a /Temp subpage. As that version seemed to me more in the style of a encyclopedia article, and was better referenced etc., I moved it in place over the original version, which remains available in the page history. --Michael Snow 22:49, 28 March 2006 (UTC)


The claim that DDP meets the criteria for the EBT designation is a very questionable one, as I recently pointed out in a letter to the editorial board of the Child and Adolescent Social Work journal, cc'd to Becker-Weidman. My comments on the nature of evidentiary bases, especially as they relate to Becker-Weidman's publication, will shortly be posted on www.childrenintherapy.org -- under the title "EBT or not EBT?" I would appreciate editing of this page to include any rebuttal to those remarks that Becker-Weidman may be able to provide. Proof by assertion is not acceptable evidence, and if Wikipedia permits simple assertions on controversial issues, it may as well declare itself a blog. Jean Mercer.

The material was published in a professional peer-reviewed journal. Child and Adolescent Social Work found the study valid, reliable, and as meeting criteria for evidence-based-treatment as described in the article. Your comments have not yet appeared in the journal. Will they be published or was you letter dismissed as irrelevant. The article demonstrates that Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy is an evidence based treatment and subsequent resarch that has also been published confirms that. [Disinterested person and licensed therapist providing services for child and adolescents.]

Please note that my comments were not written for publication, but as a letter to the editorial board, as I felt it would be desirable to allow the journal to handle the matter in a private way. I do notice that the article did not appear in the issue referenced in this article. Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal accepted the article; this is not an indication that they considered the material valid or reliable (and indeed i don't see what those adjectives have to do with a CCT study), or that they consider DDP to meet criteria for an evidentiary basis-- for example, meeting the TREND guidelines. As i am sure you know, I have commented elsewhere on this peer review issue. Not all journals have well-organized review procedures,and even when they do, mistakes can be made. You cannot segue from a journal's statement that it is peer-reviewed to the conclusion that any material published there automatically meets criteria for an evidentiary basis-- this is apples and oranges, even pineapples or kiwi fruit. In fact, DDP does not have a satisfactory basis of evidence for a number of reasons: 1)participants were self-selected, introducing confounding variables; no explanation was given for the failure of the comparison group to enter treatment, and no demographic comparison of the groups was presented; 2)there has been no independent replication of these findings; 3)researchers were apparently not blind to the treatment status of participants; 4)human subjects protection guidelines were not observed; 5)no specific description of treatment seems to be available, and the description given in the Wiki piece under consideration is at variance with the description in the "Dr. Art" book currently available on Becker-Weidman's web site; 6) the statistical analysis is problematic, substituting the easy but dangerous multiple-t approach to the ANOVA which should have been done here; 7) although the Wiki piece stresses the CBCL findings, the journal article (as it was posted on the web site) refers also to the use of the egregiously faulty RADQ checklist. If anyone would like to provide substantive counter-arguments to these points, as opposed to simply deleting my comments or mounting personal attacks, I would be very pleased to read them and to see them included in the article.Jean Mercer 15:52, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, they obvioulsy rejected your "letter" and chose not to publish it. The journal, as far as I can see is a professional peer-reviewed journal that found Dr. Becker-Weidman's article worthy of publication and as providing substantive and valuable material that would be of use to professionals. The article did describe that those in the control group came for evaluation only and the statistics clearly show that the two groups did not differ in a significant way on a broad range of demographic, clinical, and test score data. CBCL scores are valid and reliable. Overall, the claims you make are irrelevant as the journal's acceptance of the article suggests your "issues" with the article are minor and do not take away from the scientific validity and value of this study. RalphLender 17:54, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

No, what it suggests is that CASWJ is not particularly concerned with research design. Not all journals have the same concerns. But from the point of view of establishing an evidentiary basis, my questions need to be addressed. Volunteers are different from non-volunteers, that's well known. So, why did some people come for evaluation only, and others for evaluation plus treatment? What were the basic differences between the groups? Did they have to do with family needs-- did some of the parents not like the offered treatment-- were other treatments chosen instead? All of those questions are relevant to interpretation of the outcome, as are the points that always go unmentioned, the transparency issues, the use of the RADQ, and the choice of statistics... not to mention compliance with guidelines for protection of human subjects.Scott Lilienfeld has been telling us that clinicians are not educated to understand these issues, and I'm afraid he may be right. Look, a lot of people have thought and written a great deal about establishing evidence to support the efficacy and safety of treatments. It's quite difficult to do a good CCT study. I don't demand that you randomize-- that can be almost impossible, especially in private practice. I don't even demand that you have a better design. But I do demand transparency in reporting, including appropriate statistical handling. By the way, it's really unconscionable to leave the incorrect reference information on this page and elsewhere, making it impossible for many readers to examine the paper for themselves. If you believe that there is really clear-cut evidence to support DDP, put it out there where readers can get at it, and explain why you think the design and analysis are acceptable. Once again, the real issue is not who is King of the Attachment Therapists or Big Expert on Research Design. The question is about protection of children and families, especially highly vulnerable adoptive families. It is a blow against those people to claim that a treatment is effective without unimpeachable evidence.To convince them of what is not true is to persuade them to spend their scarce resources and get nothing in return. I don't know what your ethics code says about that, but mine disapproves. Jean Mercer 20:25, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Someone with an IP address from the Buffalo, NY, area seems to so much lack a secure base that s/he can't tolerate any discussion. So s/he deletes things (like the paragraph before last) in an Orwellian attempt to rewrite history. So I've put back the paragraph and remind that s/he can't rewrite the Wikipedia history. For the sake of his/her rapidly declining reputation, s/he should try explaining or justifying his/her editing behavior. 206.81.65.234 21:50, 24 April 2006 (UTC) A friend (not an alter ego) of Jean Mercer and of the truth

Page is growing nicely

This page is growing well. The evidence base for this form of treatment is rapidly expanding. Forgot to sign in RalphLender 20:41, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I've read some very interesting material about this treatment and find it very compelling RalphLender 20:41, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I have done some editng that I think reflects reality a bit better than the previous version. However, I notice a great deal of disorganization and repetition in the article. Are the original study and the follow-up really as identical as is presented here? One does think of Sir Cyril Burtt. Jean Mercer 22:13, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I added a citation and cleaned up some of the material to be more neutral and correct DPeterson 00:34, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps, if for "neutral" one reads "positive." however, I see you left the apostrophes I inserted-- that's a step in the right direction. My questions from 11 july still need to be answered, and the article is not well organized. I would propose the following parts: definition; description of treatment; theoretical background; evidentiary basis. Every point currently in the article could be placed in one of these categories. In the description and the theoretical sections, the material needs to be more concisely descriptive; presently there are a lot of words, but the naive reader would not know much after wading through them. The descriptive section also needs to clarify the work done with parents-- the "Dr. Art" book on Becker-Weidman's web site does not suggest much about this except that parents are apparently advised to bottle-feed school-age children. In the section about theory, I would think a reference to Stern would be a propos. Also, because of Hughes' remarks in his 1997 (I think) book, it would seem that Foster Cline's contribution should be acknowledged-- Hughes has never given a clear statement about his current view on this and why it has altered, if it has. Although the concept of attachment is shared with Bowlby, much of the background lies elsewhere; Bowlby never suggested that early stages of attachment could be re-worked by imitating the normal events of those periods. This is an important point to deal with, because the APSAC task force report specifically rejected the use of age regression techniques (see the november issue of Child Maltreatment for a LTE proposing a definition of age regression.)To claim compliance with APSAC, proponents of DDP need to offer a rationale for their use of bottle-feeding and similar practices.Jean Mercer 12:52, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

As a reader of this, and other pages, it might be useful for you to read the book 'Creating Capacity For Attachment' edited by Dr. Becker-Weidman & Deborah Shell, Wood N Barnes, Oklahoma City:OK 2005 as that has an excellent description of the theory base for Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy. I found nothing in that book that suggest the approach is coercive. I aldo found no references to Foster Cline. The book has an excellent chapter about work with parents too; this has nothing in it about "age regression," which, to my reading, is not a part of this treatment approach. The approach is consistent with APSAC and various other practice parameters. So, I think all your concerns have been addressed in that text. RalphLender 15:27, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

The reference to Foster Cline had to do with Hughes, whose work is said to be the foundation of DDP. I have no doubt that the B-W and Shell book does not index age regression or use this term, but there is some category of practices that APSAC termed "age regression" (and unfortunately, in the midst of their fine work, they neglected to define the term). I assume that no one is speaking seriously of hypnotic age regression, past-lives regression, or any of that stuff, so I see nothing else for age regression to mean except practices that treat the child in age-inappropriate ways such as bottle-feeding and prolonged gaze, with the intention of re-working emotional processes that are thought to have gone wrong long before. If I am wrong, perhaps you can tell me what APSAC meant by rejecting age regression, and what practices would be relevant here. Your explanation would need to include a rationale for Dr. Becker-Weidman's mentioning on his web site the practice of bottle-feeding a school-age child.12.75.151.203 16:12, 12 July 2006 (UTC) Sorry, i thought I'd signed in. Jean Mercer 21:52, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, since the book does not referernce Foster Cline and does not include recommendations or treatment methods that meet 12.75.151.203's def. of age-regerssion, this is now a non-issue and not relevant to this discussion. So, this discussion can be closed at this time. RalphLender 17:07, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Not quite so fast, perhaps. Examining the actual theoretical and historical background of an idea may take more time and work than the idea's proponents sometimes think. Often examination of earlier work from which a current author drew concepts will tell you a lot about a theme that's being elaborated. I'm suggesting that Hughes' past enthusiasm for holding therapy, in the Foster Cline pattern, is a foundation for DDP; this seems especially likely to be relevant because Becker-Weidman states that he received training in Evergreen. Of course, not too many people would want to cite Cline nowadays, so i don't expect this to be mentioned in the edited book. As for age regression, are you suggesting that the material on Dr. Becker-Weidman's web site is not congruent with his statements in his paper in that edited book? If that's the case, perhaps you'd better discuss the matter in this article. Treatment methods certainly evolve-- are you saying that's happened here? There is no question that the Dr. Art book refers to bottle-feeding, so perhaps there's more to be discussed about this treatment than has yet appeared. Jean Mercer 21:52, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Incidentally, the report of the follow-up study has one quite remarkable characteristic, and other researchers would be most appreciative if Dr. Becker-Weidman would tell us how he managed this. It would appear that no participants from either the treatment or the comparison group were lost to follow-up after an interval of almost four years. Even in residential treatment this would be surprising.Jean Mercer 21:58, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

That is just silly. Must we discuss surgery pre-Anesthesia if discussing new developments in surgery? No, what you suggest is not relevant to articles here. The book speaks for itself. Dr. Becker-Weidman's credentials are extensive and impressive and his publications are compelling and well-respected in the professional community; at least as I read it. I am not going to answer every one of your questions as these are irrelvant and "red-herrings." In addition, you obviously did not read the two studies published by Dr. Becker-Weidman carefully as there is specific discussion of attrition. This now makes one wonder about the veracity of your other statements if you either did not read the material carefully ore are misrepresenting it. In any event you are incorrect. I'd say this line of discussion if completed...Next. DPeterson 22:25, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

This Wiki article, right here, says the two studies had the same numbers of people and appears to say that they were there both initially and at the later assessments. If this was not the case-- e.g. there were 100 initially in the treatment group, in the treatment goup, and this was reduced to 34 at the end of the treatment period with 34 still present a couple of years later-- this should be said, especially because there's so much detail being given. Why not just refer the reader to the published paper if a full discussion is not to be given? (Speaking of that-- got any page numbers for the CASWJ article? Without page numbers, you know, readers can't get it on interlibrary loan if that's what they need to do, and it is an obscure publication.)

As for the anesthesia analogy, no, of course, if you're talking about methods, there would be no reason to talk about history. But if you were talking about a theory of anesthesia and how it gave rise to current work in anesthesia, then you would need to talk about history. This article and other related pieces make a point of mentioning the theoretical background of DDP--- you needn't do this if you don't want to, but if you do it you need to discuss the historical development from one thing to another. Otherwise, you're just waving the name Bowlby around as a symbol of authority, not actually considering the development of ideas. In any case, it's an interesting question: how come Hughes was into holding ten years ago, now he's not? What is the explanation? Can Hughes or B-W explain this change of thinking? If they can, it's awfully important, because they are the people who might be able to turn around the group who still use coercive restraint. So the question about background is very meaningful at every level, including protections for children presently in treatment. Jean Mercer 23:45, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Again, read the book and the articles so you have your 'facts' straight. An article about anesthesia would not include the material you describe...that would just be irrelevant. Dr. Hughes and Dr. Becker-Weidmaan do not need to describe changes in their practice. Do we ask the cancer surgeon to explain in excruiting detail, as you seem to want, why the surgeon no longer routinely does radical mastectomies when the surgeon did that routinely ten years ago? No, of course not!

The practice of Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy appears to meet all professional standards, APA, NASW, APSAC, Amer Academy of Pediatrics, etc., etc., etc....

Again, raising "red-herrings," much as the ACT group and other fringe groups do is not productive here, so the discussion really ought to end...but if you insist on acting as a spokesperson for ACT, at least say so. A Neutral Point of View is much preferred....68.66.160.228 00:33, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

      • When beliefs are diametrically opposed, the only neutrality involves two statements, each clarifying the stand of one group. Is that what you would like to do?12.75.168.251 17:55, 13 July 2006 (UTC)Jean Mercer (sorry , flubbed sign-in somehow)
I agree. The book and articles are clear. The approach is not coercive and does not use "age-regression" as part of the method. I see no point in continuing this "dialogue" and giving validity to views that are not relevant. The facts, as previously put, are quite clear. RalphLender 13:57, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Saying the facts are clear doesn't make them so, and repeating a claim of effectiveness is just a quaint rhetorical device. This is an encyclopedia article and therefore should be accessible to the lay reader. If that person wanted to read all the original material, he or she would go and do so; whatever is stated in the article should provide the information in a concise but complete form that the average reader can deal with. That means 1)the whole article needs to be re-written for organization-- I suggested earlier a format that would work; 2)if details of research are mentioned at all (and they need not be), necessary information should be included, and unnecessary repetition should be omitted; 3)where any point is made, it needs to be a meaningful part of the whole communication, not just a signal commanding belief; this is why I say, either remove the allusion to theory completely, or if you think it's important do a proper job on it.

I wouldn't expect a description of anesthesia to refer to background unless the writer alluded to it to begin with-- then I'd want to know what the connection was. You (or somebody) have made the allusion to theory, so either complete it or remove it. And, as for explaining why a change has been made, I'd say that a professional who has advised others to follow practices that the practitioner later sees as inappropriate, has an obligation to correct the ill effects of their earlier advice. Anyone can make a mistake, but people with fiduciary responsibilities have a particular obligation to correct theirs in public. With respect to age regression, the Becker-Weidman web site does refer to relevant practices, but they aren't mentioned here in this article. Does that mean that there's more to DDP than is discussed here? Or does it mean that B-W's treatment is not DDP? The latter would be of interest, because the data reported here all came out of his office as far as I know. Well, guys, this has been real, but you can't be having fun all the time. I'm going out of town for a few days. See ya next week, no doubt.12.75.168.251 17:55, 13 July 2006 (UTC) Comments by unknown persons are suspect...It would be better to sign in. RalphLender 18:05, 13 July 2006 (UTC) It was me, Jean Mercer-- I thought I had signed in Jean Mercer 19:23, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

But the facts are clear...continuing to say they are not does not make that true. Your suggestions are not helpful in creating a useful article. The inclusion to theory is well written. I disagree with your assessment. The article is good as it is. While you may have a particular point to advocate for, based on memberhip, etc., this is probably not the place to do so. I see no references to "age-regression" on the site for the Center For Family Development, of which Dr. Becker-Weidman is a member. The book he co-edited and his articles "speak for themselves," on this subject and clearly preclude coercive interventions. RalphLender 21:05, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree with RalphLender JonesRD 21:55, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the article is very good: well written and with appropriate citations and support. I agree with the comments of RalphLender regarding Dr. Becker-Weidman. He is a licensed mental health professioal with many years experience and a number of publications to his credit. I disagree with mercer's comments and advocacy. DPeterson 02:34, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Supporting References

I added a couple of references that show support for several of the principles of Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy. If others have references or thoughts, let me know. DPeterson 02:39, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I find it quite incredible that anyone thinks this article is well-written-- even those who are committed to the content. But, be that as it may, I repeat for the benefit of any newcomers that there is more than one point of view here. I am working on an additional section that will be a critical analysis of the existing material, including the Hughes work.I cannot believe that it would be congruent with Wiki principles for anyone to resist the inclusion of critical material of this type. I intend to include discussion of the age regression concept, by the way.Jean Mercer 14:15, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I find the material on this page excellent. It is important that editors maintain a neutral point of view and not act as advocates or spokespersons for particular groups. Wikipedia articles should represent mainstream consensus views on topics and not be platforms for fringe groups or extreme points of view, which are not neutral points of view. RalphLender 16:11, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy Adherence to APSAC Task Force Report Recommendations

I ('MarkWood 20:32, 19 July 2006 (UTC)') thought it would be useful to put here material on how Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy complies with the APSAC Task Force Report and Recommendations: Report of the APSAC Task Force on Attachment Therapy, Reactive Attachment Disorder, and Attachment Problems. Child Maltreatment, 11 (1), 2006, pp 76-89.

This important document presents several recommendations regarding the evaluation and treatment of children with disorders of attachment. While the report itself is based on old, and in some cases outdated and incorrect information, the recommendations are valid and should be followed by all clinicians who work with children.

The Report recommends the following regarding the diagnosis and assessment of attachment problems (pg. 86):

1. Assessment should include information about patterns of behavior over time, and assessors should be cognizant that current behaviors may simply reflect adjustment to new or stressful circumstances.

2. Cultural issues should always be considered when assessing the adjustment of any child, especially in cross-cultural or international placements or adoptions. Behavior appear­ing deviant in one cultural setting may be normative for children from different cultural settings, and children placed cross­ culturally may experience unique adaptive challenges.

3. Assessment should include samples of behav­ior across situations and contexts. It should not be limited to problems in relationships with parents or primary caretakers and instead should include information regarding the child's interactions with multiple caregivers, such as teachers, day care providers, and peers. Diagnosis of RAD or other attachment problems should not be made solely based on a power struggle between the parent and child.

4. Assessment of attachment problems should not rely on overly broad, nonspecific, or unproven checklists. Screening checklists are valuable only if they have acceptable measurement properties when applied to the target populations where they will be used.

5. Assessment for attachment problems requires considerable diagnostic knowledge and skill, to accurately recognize attachment problems and to rule out competing diagnoses. Consequently, attachment problems should be diagnosed only by a trained, licensed mental health professional with considerable expertise in child development and differential diagnosis.

6. Assessment should first consider more com­mon disorders, conditions, and explana­tions for behavior before considering rarer ones. Assessors and caseworkers should be vigilant about the allure of rare disorders in the child maltreatment field and should be alert to the possibility of misdiagnosis.

7. Assessment should include family and care­giver factors and should not focus solely on the child.

8. Care should be taken to rule out conditions such as autism spectrum disorders, pervasive developmental disorder, childhood schizophrenia, genetic syndromes, or other conditions before making a diagnosis of attachment disorder. If necessary, special­ized assessment by professionals familiar with these disorders or syndromes should be considered.

9. Diagnosis of attachment disorder should never be made simply based on a child's sta­tus as maltreated, as having experienced trauma, as growing up in an institution, as being a foster or adoptive child, or simply because the child has experienced pathogenic care. Assessment should respect the fact that resiliency is common, even in the face of great adversity.

The assessment and evaluation process recommended by Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy, as described in the text, Creating Capacity for Attachment, edited by Becker-Weidman & Shell (2006)is a comprehensive evaluation of the child and family that considers strengths and weaknesses and that uses a variety of methodologies to gather information and evaluate the meaning of this data. Theassessment process is not limited exclusively to the assessment of attachment issues. Children who have chronic histories of maltreatment or institutional care may have a variety of issues that must be considered as part of a comprehensive assessment process. The evaluation inclues a screening for many issues including various mental health issues and diagnoses, sensory-integration issues, neuro-psychological issues, Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder and the effects of prenatal exposure to alcohol and drugs, and various learning issues.

The assessment includes a comprehensive review of documents including adoption summaries, school records, health records, and previous evaluations and reports. Interviews the caregivers to get a full understanding of the child’s current functioning, history, and concerns are part of the process. As part of this interview there is an assessment of the caregiver’s capacity of provide an attuned and emotionally responsive environment.

The parent’s reflective function and family of origin are important dimensions to be considered. The interview with the child includes a mental health assessment and the administration of several projective tests. The child is observed with the caregivers, and finally a variety of tests and measures are used to gather information from the child, caregivers, and teachers. The instruments commonly used include the following: Child Behavior Checklist (caregiver, child, and teacher versions), Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, House-Tree-Person Projective Test, Child Apperception Test, Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function (parent and teacher versions), Biography of parents, Day in the life of the Child narrative, Parent Stress Index, and, when indicated, we use a variety of structured observational methods and procedures such as the Ainsworth Strange Situation Protocol. Other tests and observational methods are used as indicated.

A more complete description of this assessment process and methodologies can be found in Becker-Weidman (2005) “The Logistics of Providing Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy,” In Creating Capacity for Attachment (Eds.) Arthur Becker-Weidman, Ph.D., & Deborah Shell, MA, Wood ‘N’ Barnes, OK: 2005, pp 43-56.

The Report recommends the following regarding treatment and interventions (pg. 86 - 87):

a. Treatment techniques or attachment parenting techniques involving physical coercion, psychologically or physically enforced holding, physical restraint, physical domination, provoked catharsis, ventilation of rage, age regression, humiliation, withholding or forcing food or water intake, prolonged social isolation, or assuming exaggerated levels of control and domination over a child are contraindicated because of risk of harm and absence of proven benefit and should not be used.

(1) This recommendation should not be interpreted as pertaining to common and widely accepted treatment or behavior management approaches used within reason, such as time-out, reward and punishment contingencies, occasional seclusion or physical restraint as necessary for physical safety, restriction of privileges, "grounding," offering physical comfort to a child, and so on.

b. Prognostications that certain children are destined to become psychopaths or predators should never be made based on early childhood behavior. These beliefs create an atmosphere condu­cive to overreaction and harsh or abusive treatment. Professionals should speak out against these and similar unfounded conceptualizations of children who are maltreated.

c. Intervention models that portray young children in negative ways, including describing certain groups of young children as pervasively manipulative, cunning, or deceitful, are not conducive to good treatment and may promote abusive practices. In general, child maltreatment professionals should be skeptical of treatments that describe children in pejorative terms or that advocate aggressive techniques for breaking down children's defenses.

d. Children's expressions of distress during therapy always should be taken seriously. Some valid psychological treatments may involve transitory and controlled emotional distress. However, deliberately seeking to provoke intense emotional distress or dismissing children's protests of distress is contraindicated and should not be done.

e. State-of-the-art, goal-directed, evidence-based approaches that fit the main presenting problem should be considered when selecting a first-line treatment. Where no evidence-based option exists or where evidence-based treatment options have been exhausted, alternative treatments with sound theory foundations and broad clinical acceptance are appropriate. Before attempting novel or highly unconventional treatments with untested benefits, the potential for psychological or physical harm should be carefully weighed.

f. First-line services for children described as having attachment problems should be founded on the core principles suggested by attachment theory, including caregiver and environmental stability, child safety, patience, sensitivity, consistency, and nurturance. Shorter term, goal-directed, focused, behavioral interventions targeted at increasing parent sensitivity should be considered as a first line treatment.

g. Treatment should involve parents and caregivers, including biological parents if reunification is an option. Fathers, and mothers, should be included if possible. Parents of children described as having attachment problems may benefit from on­going support and education. Parents should not be instructed to engage in psychologically or physically coercive techniques for therapeutic purposes, including those associated with any of the known child deaths.

The Informed Consent Document addresses each of these recommendations. Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy is an evidence-based treatment (See: Becker-Weidman, “Treatment for Children with Trauma-Attachment Disorders: Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy,” April 2006 issue of Child and Adolescent Social Work. Becker-Weidman, “The Effective Treatment of Abused Children with Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy,” in, Child Abuse and Its Impact, Frank Columbus, Ph.D. (Ed.) Nova Science Publishers, NY, 2006.). It is grounded in Attachment Theory and relies of the creation and maintenance of a safe and secure base from which the family can explore issues. Attunement, the reflective function, and developing and maintaining an emotionally sensitive and response environment are core features of the treatment and the parenting principals (See, for example, Miranda Ring, Ph.D., (2005), “For Parents,” in Creating Capacity For Attachment.).

Caregivers are always involved directly in treatment and are trained in attachment facilitating parenting methods that use an attuned sensitive and reflective approach. In no instances are coercive methods used. Dysregulation is never sought and on those rare instances in which a child becomes dysregulated, the therapist works actively and sensitively to re-regulate the child.

Other sections of the APSAC recommendations address the child welfare system and ethical standards. Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy complies with those recommendations. Specifically, the report recommended the following for the child welfare system:

Recommendations for child welfare

a. Treatment provided to children in the child welfare and foster care systems should be based on a careful assessment conducted by a qualified mental health professional with expertise in differential diagnosis and child development. Child welfare systems should guard against accepting treatment prescriptions based on word-of-mouth recruitment among foster caregivers or other lay individuals.

b. Child welfare systems should not tolerate any par­enting behaviors that normally would be considered emotionally abusive, physically abusive, or neglectful simply because they are, or are alleged to be, part of attachment treatment. For example, withholding food, water, or toilet access as punishment; exerting exaggerated levels of control over a child; restraining children as a treatment; or intentionally provoking out-of-control emotional distress should be evaluated as suspected abuse and handled accordingly.

The report recommended the following ethical standards.

Professionals should embrace high ethical standards concerning advertising treatment services to professional audiences and especially to lay audiences.

Claims of exclusive benefit (i.e., that no other treatments will work) should never be made. Claims of relative benefit (e.g., that one treatment works better than others) should only be made if there is adequate controlled trail scientific research to support the claim. Use of patient testimonials in marketing treatment services constitutes a dual relationship. Because of the potential for exploitation, the Task Force believes that patient testimonials should not be used to market treatment services. Unproven checklists or screening tools should not be posted on Web sites or disseminated to lay audiences. Screening checklists known to have adequate measurement properties and presented with qualifications may be appropriate. Information disseminated to the lay public should be carefully qualified. Advertising should not make claims of likely benefits that cannot be supported by scientific evidence and should fully disclose all known or reasonably foreseeable risks. the evaluation and treatment procedures and methodologies that are a part of Dyadic Developmental psychotherapy are all consistent with these recommendations. MarkWood 20:29, 19 July 2006 (UTC) MarkWood 20:32, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I'll just comment on the informed consent issue for now. Becker-Weidman's i.c. document, as shown on his web site, does not meet guidelines for informed consent as given in the Federal Register and would not have been approved by an IRB. Of course, this work falls through a crack because there was no IRB consultation-- and because that is the case, the fiduciary obligations of the researcher become exceptionally serious, and all the more so because participants in this study were minors. However, I hope that more light will be shed on this when a member of the WikiProject Medicine group joins us.Jean Mercer 17:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Again, mercer is wrong and 'misrepresenting the facts; raising red-herrings' again. The informed consent document on the website for The Center For Family Development is an 'informed consent to treat' document. It is typical of what licensed mental health professionals use and that many insurance companies require. This has nothing to do with research and so is a red-herring. The two studies published by Dr. Becker-Weidman were in prestigious professional peer-reviewed publications which determined that all relevant regulations, standards, and ethical considerations had been adequately and appropriately met. RalphLender 19:58, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Excellent comparison of the APSAC recommendations and their concordance with the methods and approach of Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy. SamDavidson 15:53, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Adherence to American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry Practice Parameter

I thought the following would be of value in understanding this model of treatment. SamDavidson 15:52, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

The practice of Dyadic Developmental Psychotherpay is consistent with and in accord with the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry’s “Practice Parameter for the Assessment and Treatment of Children and Adolescents with Reactive Attachment Disorder of Infancy and Early Childhood,” 2005.

The American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry’s practice parameter reviews the current state of assessment and treatment for Reactive Attachment disorder and provides specific recommendations.

Recommendation 1. “The assessment of reactive attachment disorder requires evidence directly obtained from serial observations of the child interacting with his or her primary caregivers and history (as available) of the child’s patterns of attachment behavior with these caregivers.”

In accordance with recommendations of Zeannah et. Al., 2000, typically, a full assessment takes place over a minimum of two or three sessions. Our assessment includes a review of a comprehensive history of the child’s early caregiving environment and information from a variety of sources. The assessment procedures recommended by Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy (Becker-Weidman & Shell, 2005) include direct observations, clinical interviews, and a variety of psychometric instruments. The assessment of younger children involves direct observations in structured settings using formal methodologies, such as the Ainsworth Strange Situation Protocol (Ainsworth, et. al., 1978).

Recommendation 2. “A relatively structured observational paradigm should be conducted so that comparable behavioral observations can be established across relationships.”

Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy relies on several structured and semi-structured observational methodologies to assess younger children. These include The Strange Situation Protocol (Ainsworth et. Al. 1978) and other methods. In addition, materials and observations from teachers and other caregivers are also used in the assessment process.

Recommendation 3. “After assessment, any suspicion of previously unreported or current maltreatment requires reporting to the appropriate law enforcement and protective service authorities.”

Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy can only be provided by licensed mental health providers, who are mandated reporters.

Recommendation 4. “Referral for developmental, speech, and medical screening may be indicated.”

The assessment protocal suggested by Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy includes screening for developmental issues, sensory-integration issues, neuro-psychological concerns, and a variety of mental health and related issues. When concerns in these areas are noted, referrals to the appropriate specialists are made and treatment is coordinated with those other providers.

Recommendation 5. “The most important intervention for young children diagnosed with reactive attachment disorder and who lack an attachment to a discriminated caregiver is for the clinician to advocate for providing the child with an emotionally available attachment figure.”

This may involve advocating for a child in residential or institutional care to be placed in an appropriate therapeutic foster home. The practice of Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy advoctes working with the family to facilitate the development of such an emotionally available attachment figure by educating the parents in attachment-facilitating parenting methods and strategies. This is a vital component of treatment.

Recommendation 6. “Although the diagnosis of reactive attachment disorder is based on symptoms displayed by the child, assessing the caregiver’s attitudes toward and perceptions about the child is important for treatment.”

Reactive attachment disorder may be more accurately thought of as a disorder of the relationship. As such, interventions must address the child, parent, and relationship. We work extensively with the parents to provide specific parenting strategies and methods. Empowering the parents will often help parents who may be feeling disconnected, angry, or fearful to feel more competent; thus enabling them to act in a more healing manner. The model of parenting suggested by Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy, creating a healing PLACE (Playful, Loving, Accepting, Curious, Empathic) and our model of treatment, maintaining a healing PACE (Playful, Accepting, Curious, Empathic), is designed to provide parents with the support and guidance necessary to facilitate a healing parent-child relationship. We build on the parents’ strengths.

Assessments may also include such formal methods as the Insightful Assessment or the Adult Attachment Interview.

Recommendation 7. “After ensuring that the child is in a safe and stable placement, effective attachment treatment must focus on creating positive interactions with caregivers.”

The model of creating a healing PLACE and maintaining a healing PACE re focused on creating a safe and secure base from which the child can begin to explore the world and develop appropriate and growth enhancing relationships. The parent training is focused on positive interactions. The approach does not use or condone the use of shaming or coercive parenting methods. The model provides training for the parents using modeling, coaching, and by providing reading material for their use. The recommendation goes on to state that, “Dyadic work, therapy with the child and primary caregiver together, is the second basic modality for working though address symptoms of RAD.” The approach, Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy is consistent with this model (Creating Capacity for Attachment: Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy in the Treatment of Trauma-Attachment Disorders, edited by Arthur Becker-Weidman, Ph.D., & Deborah Shell, MA, LCMHC, Wood ‘N’ Barnes Publishing, 2005.)

Recommendation 8. “Children who meet the criteria for reactive attachment disorder and who display aggressive and oppositional behavior require adjunctive treatments.”

Specifically, the parenting approach enables parents to address these issues. Furthermore, the assessment screens for such co-morbid conditions as Bipolar I disorder that may be causing aggressive behaviors. A variety of adjunctive approaches may also be used, as indicated.

Recommendation 9. “Interventions designed to enhance attachment that involve non-contingent physical restraint or coercion…are not endorsed.

The sample Informed Consent document (Creating Capacity For Attachment, 2005) clearly states that intrusive, coercive, and other non-contingent interventions are not used or endorsed. Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy is based on Attachment Theory and uses a model of treatment that relies on contingent collaborative communication, reflective abilities, reciprocal interactions, and contingent interactions. SamDavidson 15:51, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

This is very interesting and helpful. Thank you. MarkWood 16:20, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Good Material

The two sections above are good material and certainly provide excellent background information. Thank you both for taking the time to research and post that material. JonesRD 16:57, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree...excellent material that clearly makes the point and address several of the "accusations" in preceeding discussion. DPetersontalk 01:05, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Lacks Sources

This article lacks references. It starts out giving references and then just stops. shotwell 08:14, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Please do not remove the verify tag. I will place it in the specific places that need references so that my suggestion is more clear. shotwell 17:03, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Verify tags put in as you did constitute Vandalism. You are being 'WARNED'for the third time to stop. There are abundent sources and references and much of the material is clearly a summary of material from professional peer-reviewed journals. I have added those in appropriate places. DPetersontalk 17:48, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

It was not vandalism, it was a request for citations. There are currently very few citations. There is no need for hostility or accusations of vandalism. shotwell 18:57, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
PLEASE. Let's Template:Assume Good Faith here and that Shotwell was only trying to improve this article with additional citations. I do agree that too many [citation needed] can be disruptive and can actually make an article too disjointed to read well. However, in this instance, what DPeterson has added should suffice. I would encourage DPeterson to just assume Good Faith as that makes editing and working with others go more smoothly. JonesRDtalk 22:24, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Thank-you. Let me ask, does one paper constitute a source for the claim "Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy has been shown to be an effective treatment for children with Reactive Attachment Disorder"? Academic Search Premier and LexisNexis Academic seem to only bring up one article with the phase "dyadic developmental psychotherapy". Pubmed journal search does not bring up any results at all. Can you please point me to some more peer-reviewed sources that back this up (other then Dr. Becker-Weidman's paper)? I don't think that wikipedia should claim any particular therapy is "effective" unless it is widely accepted by the psychological community.
Now, I'm not particularly wise in the ways of psych research, so perhaps I am searching the wrong places? If so, could you please point me in the right direction?
Also, the {{Fact}} tag is an accepted way of requesting a reference. shotwell 22:31, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I appologize if I've over reacted, JonesRD. There are two papers regarding the outcome of Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy cited in the reference section and in the article. One or two sources are adequate and acceptable. The peer reviewed articles in professional publications meet the standard of "effectiveness." The papers state that and those statements were accepted by professional peer reviewers. Too many {{Fact}} tags have been found to be abusive in various situations. DPetersontalk 23:25, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Which two are you referring to? I'm looking for evidence that this statement (and others like it) is widely accepted by the psychological community. shotwell 23:36, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

"Treatment for Children with Trauma-Attachment Disorders: Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy" Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal. 13(2), April 2006. Becker-Weidman, A., & Shell, D., (Eds.) (2005) Creating Capacity For Attachment, Wood 'N' Barnes, OK. ISBN 1-885473-72-9 This ia a peer reviewed publisher. Sturt, SM (Ed) (2006) New Developments in Child Abuse Research Nova Science Publishers, NY. ISBN 1-59454-980-X pp. 43-61, "Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy: A multi-year follow-up study," This is a peer reviewed publication. One peer-reviewed publication is sufficient to support the statement that something is accepted. There is no statement in the article that the statement is "widely accepted by the psychological community. No evidence is such support is necessary either. The article is well sourced and referenced and meets the stqandard of Template:Verifiable. DPetersontalk 00:59, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll check them all out. Could you possible provide references for all of the unsourced claims? It appears that you have the literature on hand. I don't know why this is so difficult. shotwell 02:21, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I think the addition of those references improves the article. I think that the unsourced claims are all largely found in the references cited above, in the article, and in the refernce list. It is a bit distracting as a reader to have a source put next to each sentance. I think what is now there provides a good basis and provides verifiability. Just my opinion as a reader. JonesRDtalk 20:10, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes, more references are better. As a reader I think there are sufficient sources to meet the Wikipedia standard as being verifiable and find the the material helpful now. MarkWood 17:49, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
This article makes extraordinary claims. Really, the only thing supporting the majority of these claims are a few shoddy research articles and a single book. If wikipedia is going to make any claim about a the effectiveness of a therapy then we need references which show it is a widely held belief in the psychological community. A handful of small, questionable, and non-influential papers (judging by the number of times these papers have been cited) does not fit the bill. Most of this article is just cruft to advertise this form of therapy. It needs to be trimmed down to eliminate this cruft.
Here is an example: "Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy meets the standards and is in compliance with the American Association for the Abuse of Children's (APSAC) Task Force's recommendations...". This claim is referenced by Becker-Weidman's paper! He is a proponent of the therapy. In fact, the truth of the matter is that the APSAC paper says things like this: "Some proponents have claimed that research exists that supports their methods, or that their methods are evidence based, or are even the sole evidence-based approach in existence, yet these proponents provide no citations to credible scientific research sufficient to support these claims".
Argument by repetition is not going to work with me. Please address my concerns. shotwell 19:34, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I really think the article reads well. It is very thoroughly documented with references and sources. While we may disagree on the "status" of the references, all the journal articles are in peer-reviewed prof. pubs and so are many of the texts. Having passed peer review, the material meets the Wiki standard of verifiability. RalphLendertalk 13:53, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Adequate Sources, References, and Citations in accord with verifiable

The articles cited and the book were from professional peer reviewed publications, which are not "shoddy." Several books are cited as are several articles by Dr. Daniel Hughes. The APSAC task force published it's report before the articles cited above were published and the Task Force did not make the quote you cite in reference to this particular form of treatment. So, with several professional peer-reviewed publications and several books from peer-reviewed publishers cited, this is a well sourced article that meets the verifiable standard of Wikipedia. Furthermore, there are a significant number of other references cited in the Reference section. On the whole, I find that this article is as well or more adequately referenced than a number of others. The vast majority of editors seem to agree. DPetersontalk 19:47, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

That quote from the APSAC task force is in direct reference to Becker-Weidman, Hughes, and others like them. While we're on the topic, the same report says that AT should be investigated as possible child abuse and it makes no mention of "Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy" as meeting their guidelines.
The books by Hughes were published before the APSAC task force paper. As such, the claims in this article are being made on Becker-Weidman's authority alone. The fact that a single report was published in a peer-reviewed journal does not make it correct or even suggest that it is correct. The fact that there is exactly one peer-reviewed study on this therapy does not mean the therapy is sound, has a valid evidential basis, or is widely accepted in the psychological community. As for the other references, they are only supporting very small claims. The largest claims in this article are being supported by about two papers (from the same researcher) that appear to have had very little influence.
I have no problem with describing the therapy and saying that one study showed it may be effective. I have no problem with explaining how and why this treatment is grounded in the theories of about two other people. I do have a problem with just asserting that it is effective and that it follows certain guidelines. Let me balance this by saying that I'd be equally resistant and skeptical about broadly asserting this therapy is ineffective.
Let me ask, is this therapy taught in any accredited universities? shotwell 20:36, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

No, the quote was not "in direct reference to Becker-Weidman, Hughes and others like them." Your bias is showing clearly now. It is vital that you maintain a 'NPOV' and not distort facts.

The facts and statements in this article are supported by professional peer reviewed research and publications...take a minute to read the reference list. Two studies showed the effectiveness of the treatment and many many others support various components of the treatment. Resarch demonstrates that it is effective, that is a verifiable fact.

DPetersontalk 21:37, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

By "others like them", I mean "proponents of attachment-based therapies that do not make use of physically coercive methods". It was not intended as an insult or slur (even if it was rather curt). There is a large part of the APSAC paper dedicated to such therapies and the weak evidential basis.
That said, I don't have to maintain a npov; that would be nearly impossible. We are not required to be neutral about everything -- we're required to write neutral articles.
And rather than just assert that they are supported by "professional peer-reviewed publications", can you please address my specific concerns? Namely, I am concerned about the extraordinary claims being supported by two papers from a single researcher.
Let me ask again: is this therapy taught in any accredited universities? This would help me see how widely accepted it is. shotwell 21:58, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Please make your 'specific suggestions below'. You really should just 'make a proposal rather than harping endlessly'. As I read all this I do not find the claims "extraordinary." The statements are appropriately sourced and clearly verifiable. Several articles from professional peer-reviewed publications and several texts are cited and referenced. Let's move along here. Make your proposal below as various others have requested and let interested editors comment on your suggestions and we'll see what develops. JonesRDtalk 22:15, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

My specific proposals? Remove or reword extraordinary claims if they cannot be better sourced. Extraordinary claims include any claims about the proven efficacy of this therapy, the evidential basis for the therapy, and whether or not this meets the APSAC's guidelines. I'd do this, but one of the accounts would revert it.

The claims are verifiable, not extraordinary. They are referenced and sourced with many citations...just make your specific suggestions below...you keep avoiding doing that, whay is that?DPetersontalk 23:07, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not really harping, I'm asking questions. Isn't the talk page for discussion about the article? shotwell 22:23, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

SPECIFIC PROPOSALS FOR ADDITIONS AND CHANGES

Here is the place to put your specific suggestions for what you want added, edited, or changed...it would be best to write out here what you propose so that others can comment and we can build consensus; which will make for a better article. DPetersontalk 23:07, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

How about this? I'll take a short break from this article while I research the topic some more. This way I'll be able to list specific proposals. shotwell 00:40, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

All you need to to is put a specific suggestion here...what you want to add, change, or edit. Pretty siimple. That allows all who wish to comment to do so and that is how consensus is built, which is a cornerstone of Wikipedia philosophy. DPetersontalk 01:13, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I'd like to know more about this though so I'm still going to take a short break. I encourage you to add more references in the meantime and to reword much of the POV language. shotwell 01:51, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
As primarily a reader and somtime editor, I agree that I'd prefer to see specific suggestions spelled out...what, exactly, is proposed. That allows me to comment in a more helpful way. RalphLendertalk 13:51, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Here are some suggestions I can make at this point:

  • Becker-Weidman's paper only studied DDP as a treatment for RAD and not AD. The claim "this is an evidence based treatment for AD and RAD" is not supported by credible research. I still dispute the use of a single paper to say that this treatment effectively treats RAD. Nonetheless, there are no peer-reviewed papers that support the use of DDP in treating AD. Hence, we cannot make the claim. I'm not interested in a semantic discussion of the term "Attachment Disorder" because there are many clinics that claim to treat AD and AD is often referred to as a supposedly clinical diagnosis.
  • None of the peer-reviewed references support the claim that DDP fits the guidelines set forth in the task-force report and I cannot find any other credible reference that supports this claim. We can't say that the therapy satisfies those guidelines if there is no credible (per WP:RS) source to back it up. Although I don't think the claim is needed at all, it needs to be changed to something like "Practitioners of this therapy say.....".
  • I think we need to remove or reword extraordinary claims about the evidential basis and efficacy of this therapy for the following reasons: This technique appears to be used exclusively or mainly at two particular clinics, it does not (seem to) appear in any major treatise, and DDP does not seem to appear in the literature except for Hughes' and Becker-Weidman's research. Furthermore, Becker-Weidman's second study appears to have used the same sample group from the first study. The sample group in the first study was chosen retrospectively and this is a well-known mechanism to inadvertently introduce researcher bias into a study. (I understand that this is a common research method, but I object to such methods being used as the sole reference in an encyclopedia article). WP:RS clearly states:
The fact that a statement is published in a refereed journal does not make it true. Even a well-designed experiment or study can produce flawed results or fall victim to deliberate fraud. (See the Retracted article on neurotoxicity of ecstasy and the Schön affair.)
Honesty and the policies of neutrality and No original research demand that we present the prevailing "scientific consensus". Polling a group of experts in the field wouldn't be practical for many editors but fortunately there is an easier way. The scientific consensus can be found in recent, authoritative review articles or textbooks and some forms of monographs.
There is sometimes no single prevailing view because the available evidence does not yet point to a single answer. Because Wikipedia not only aims to be accurate, but also useful, it tries to explain the theories and empirical justification for each school of thought, with reference to published sources. Editors must not, however, create arguments themselves in favor of, or against, any particular theory or position. See Wikipedia:No original research, which is policy. Although significant-minority views are welcome in Wikipedia, the views of tiny minorities need not be reported. (See Wikipedia:Neutral Point of View.)
Make readers aware of any uncertainty or controversy. A well-referenced article will point to specific journal articles or specific theories proposed by specific researchers.

I am led to conclude that we need to reword claims of efficacy and evidential basis to reflect that these opinions are not widely held by the psychological community.

  • My final proposals are probably non-controversial. I think the article should be re-ordered as follows 1.)All descriptions of therapy 2.) Theoretical Basis 3.) Evidential Basis. This is a more logical order for an encyclopedia entry. Also, there is a diagram which summarizes DDP; it appears in several places (particularly in Becker-Weidman's paper). I'm not sure who holds the copyright to this diagram, but it'd be neat to include if we're allowed. This article is describing a fairly complex psycho-therapeutic method and any diagrams would be helpful to the reader. Finally, the in-line citations should follow a single method. If we're going to use footnotes, we should should use the ref tag (rather than cite like this (1)). If we're going to use the Harvard method, then footnote citations need to be changed.

I'm not going to make any of these changes because anything I do seems to result in an instant revert. If we can all promise not to instantly revert changes to this article, then I'll make them myself. I'm not interested in debating if the debate will simply involve "You're wrong".

I am in the midst of reading Hughes' work and will come back later to provide more feedback after I'm through. My primary concern (or question) is that Hughes appears to advocate the use of physically coercive methods, while The Center for Family Development states rather strongly that such methods are inherently flawed and not a part of DDP. Are there two DDP's? shotwell 14:50, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

COMMENTS

There are two peer reviewed studies by Dr. Becker-Weidman, one in the J of C&A SW and one in New Developments in Child Abuse Research. I think the second one may discuss AD and RAD...Hughes work discusses both. However, replacing A.D. with RAD would be fine, I suppose...where would you specifically suggest that occur?

If you have other specific proposals, put the 'wording' in a new section for comment and review. I don't find the claims "extraordinary," just credible and based in Template:Verifiable sources.

Your final proposal is interesting, so, put it into a spcific section below so editors can review it and comment on it and build agreement...by put it into a section, I mean write precisely what you want the article to read...the words, so editors can comment.

Hughes makes clear he does not use physically coercive methods...read the articles. In those articles it is also clear how the approach is congruent with various professional standards.

Right, make the changes/proposals here...write exactly what you want in the article here first...good idea. RalphLendertalk 16:03, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

This article is excellent. I like the layout. It has a broad range of sources and references. Makes for good and credible reading. SamDavidson 20:34, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Claims needing verification

Because nobody has addressed my specific concerns without simply refuting them, I am going to place a {{verify}} tag on top of this article. Placing {{fact}} tags everywhere makes the article look ridiculous (as we all seem to agree). To reinforce why I'm putting the tag here, I'll list a sample of claims that I believe need a reference, or that I believe need a better reference. I'm listing the claims one by one, rather than list entire paragraphs. I'm doing this to point out the contentious claims made in this article. By contentious, I mean claims that a non-trivial number of experts/therapists/psychologists may disagree with. (Note that I'm not asking that we footnote every one of these sentences. As we have seemed to previously agree, a ridiculous number of footnotes looks silly.)

  • "Children who have experienced pervasive and extensive trauma, neglect, loss, and/or other dysregulating experiences can benefit from this treatment."

'Conclusion of article in professional peer reviewed journal cited in article and reference list.'

  • "The treatment meets the standards of the American Professional Society on Child Abuse, The American Academy of Child Psychiatry, American Psychological Association, American Psychiatric Association, National Association of Social Workers, and various other groups' standards for the evaluation and treatment of children and adolescents."
  • "This is a non-coercive treatment."

'Conclusion of article in professional peer reviewed journal cited in article and reference list.'

  • "The principles and methodology of Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy are based on long-standing treatment principles with very strong empirical evidence and a long history of proven efficacy."

'Conclusion of article in professional peer reviewed journal cited in article and reference list. Identified in articles and books on the subject.'

  • "Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy is an effective and evidence-based treatment..."
  • "It relies on sound treatment principles based on empirical evidence..."
  • "Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy has been shown to be an effective treatment for children with Reactive Attachment Disorder."

'Conclusion of article in professional peer reviewed journal cited in article and reference list.'

  • "This study supports several of O’Connor & Zeanah’s conclusions and recommendations concerning treatment."

'Conclusion of article in professional peer reviewed journal cited in article and reference list.'

  • "This study suggests that Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy is an effective intervention for children with trauma-attachment problems." (It may suggest that, but we claim the inference in an article without a secondary source)

'Conclusion of article in professional peer reviewed journal cited in article and reference list.'

  • "All children were between the ages of five and sixteen when the study began." (This isn't true, the study was done retrospectively)

'Conclusion of article in professional peer reviewed journal cited in article and reference list.' The two studies were based on all cases seen at the clinic during one twelve month period.

  • "The role of the parent in his/her child's psychotherapy is the following..." (All psychotherapy, or just DDP)
  • "Frequently a person's symptoms are his/her unsuccessful ways of regulating frightening or shame-based memories, emotions, and current experiences. Angrily telling a person to stop engaging in these symptoms may actually increase their underlying causes...."
  • "When we help to carry and contain the pain with him/her, and when we co-regulate it with him/her, we are providing him/her with the safety needed to explore, resolve, and integrate the experience. We do not facilitate safety when we support a client's avoidance of the pain, but rather when we remain emotionally present when he is addressing the pain."

'Conclusion of article in professional peer reviewed journal cited in article and reference list.' 'Also see texts by Dr. Hughes and books in list.'

  • "Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy meets the standards and is incompliance with the American Association for the Abuse of Children's (APSAC) Task Force's recommendations (APSAC Task Force Report and Recommendations: Report of the APSAC Task Force on Attachment Therapy, Reactive Attachment Disorder, and Attachment Problems. Child Maltreatment, 11 (1), 2006, pp 76-89.) and the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry practice parameters (American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry’s “Practice Parameter for the Assessment and Treatment of Children and Adolescents with Reactive Attachment Disorder of Infancy and Early Childhood,” 2005.) In addition, the practice of Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy is consistent with the practice standards of the American Psychological Association and the National Association of Social Workers." (the one reference in this statement does not support the claim) 'Conclusion of article in professional peer reviewed journal cited in article and reference list.'

This list is not exhaustive and I'll have more to add once these claims are removed, reworded, or better sourced. Each one of the above claims has to do with the efficiay of DDP, its acceptance by the psychological community, and so on. Claims such as these need to be very well sourced and they need to be indicative of widely held beliefs in the psychological community. We are writing an encyclopedia here and it is not the place to make a case for or against this therapy. I have a strong appreciation of minority views, so I'm not trying to eradicate those views from the article (nor do I want them eradicated). For example, rather than remove broad claims like "this treatment is effective and evidence based...", I would like to see "Two studies have asserted this therapy is effective" (or something along those lines).

I kindly ask that nobody remove the {{verify}} tag until these issues are settled. When providing references, please recall WP:RS, WP:V, WP:OR, and WP:CITE shotwell 20:25, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

The two articles by Dr. Becker-Weidman, the book he co-edited, and the articles by Dr. Hughes all are verifiable sources for those comments. Would it work to put the appropriate citation at the end of each relevant paragraph? DPetersontalk 01:01, 15 October 2006 (UTC) If you want citations at the end of each section, that is fine....but it may get a little redundant. I will add those now and later remove the tag.DPetersontalk 01:22, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I do not believe that Hughes' work can be used to source claims about the evidential basis or efficacy of this therapy. His work was around before the APSAC task-force report and that report said that there was no evidential basis for such therapies. Moreover, any assertion about the efficacy of a particular therapy should be referenced by a statement from an organization such as the APA. I really don't agree with flatly stating the therapy is effective because Wikipedia articles shouldn't endorse specific treatment methods. However, in the interest of reaching a compromose I'm happy with the claims if someone can dig up references that indicate this treatment is endorsed by a major organization (e.g. APA) or major work (something like what I'm told Bergin and Garfield's Handbook of Psychotherapy and Behavior Change is). If no such references can be found, then we need to change those assertions to reflect the fact that a very limited number of professionals believe this therapy is effective.
As for Dr. Becker-Weidman's two research papers on this topic, I have no problem with using them so long as they are backing up properly phrased claims. The issue can be easily dealt with by changing a proposition like "This therapy is effective" to "Two studies concluded that this therapy is effective. In those studies....".
Thus, I appreciate that we are working together here but I do not think the {{verify}} tag is ready to come off. shotwell 07:48, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Dr. Hughes work does provide a verifiable source for some, but not all, of the items you want sources for. Clarims regarding efficacy do not require APA approval. Wikipedia only requires sources and references be verifiable. There is evidence in this case, since three peer reviewed publications state that the treatment is effective. This is sufficient. Now, if you can produce evidence of an empirical study demonstrating that the treatment was not effective, than that should be cited.
Your proposed language is 'acceptable'to me...it is factual and specific and represents a NPOV. May I suggest that we let other editors comment on that and if there is largely a consensus, we follow that? I will put your proposal in a new section for comment below.

DPetersontalk 13:15, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Proposal on change in language

How do other's feel about changing the words "'This therapy is effective'" to '"Two studies concluded that this therapy is effective. In those studies..."' This proposal was made by Shotwell, see above section. DPetersontalk 13:15, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

  1. I agree with this suggestion.DPetersontalk 13:15, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  2. Seems reasonable to me. SamDavidson 17:20, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  3. I think my opinion is clear, but I just wanted to say that I am very happy about our ability to come together on this point. shotwell 17:33, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  4. I think the proposal is a good one and went ahead and made what I think everyone wanted...if I've goofed, please let me know and edit to what was intended. JohnsonRon 00:51, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the tag to the page because of the change made by JohnsonRon. DPetersontalk 03:01, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate that we're working together, but my other points have not been addressed. Please address the points listed above before removing the verify tag again. shotwell 14:57, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

What other points? My reading of both sections and the article leads me to the conclusion that all points have been addressed by the inclusion of the citations in the reference section and at the end of various paragraphs. RalphLendertalk 15:45, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Poll on "verify" Tag

Do other editors think the tag should remain or be deleted at this point? PLEASE BE SURE TO SIGN YOUR COMMENTS.

'RETAIN TAG'

  1. _

'REMOVE TAG'

  1. I 'support' removing the tag at this point since all the important and relevant areas have been sourced and provided with verifiable references. It is not appropriate to have a citation for every sentance. The articles and books cited are the sources of the verifiable data here. RalphLendertalk 15:50, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
  2. 'YES'. All the major points have been addressed. JonesRDtalk 21:01, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
  3. 'Agree' DPetersontalk 01:40, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  4. Yes, get rid of it. The article is sourced properly and meets the Wikipedia standard for verifiability.


I'm sorry, a straw poll cannot justify the removal of the tag. Wikipedia is not a democracy. We should discuss, not vote. Please clearly address the concerns I listed above. shotwell 16:02, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Polls are an accepted dispute resolution procedure. All the concerns have been addressed. If you feel they have not, then please create a new section listing those you feel are still pending. As I read the sections, everything is addressed by the citations provided and also by the references to the professional peer reviewed journals articles and books cited. RalphLendertalk 17:39, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

RfC

I've made a request for comments about this article to gather some outside opinions. shotwell 19:17, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments copied from WP:RFC\SCI:

Can broad claims of therapeutic efficacy and evidential basis be supported by the conclusions of a single peer-reviewed paper? Can we say this therapy satisfies criteria set by the APSAC and APA if only a single proponent of this therapy has made the assertion? 19:15, 21 October 2006 (UTC) (Original unsigned RfC summary)
There are several prublications in peer-reviewed publications and books as well. Several "proponents" have made that statement, and the articles and books referenced provide the support for the statements. RalphLendertalk 20:01, 21 October 2006 (UTC) (Response later removed from RfC page)

I took the liberty of placing them here to help start discussion. Hope this is acceptable to all. --Ginkgo100 talk · e@ 20:45, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

  1. I think that the several peer-reviewed journal articles and books make tha point that there is efficacy and an evidential basis for this treatment. Could there be more? Yes. But the fact is that there are two outcome studies in professional peer-reviewed publications. My reading of the articles and books shows that the approach is compliant with APSAC and APA criteria. DPetersontalk 21:27, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
One peer-reviewed study has asserted the efficacy of this therapy since the APSAC task-force report declared a lack of evidential basis for such treatments. They were aware of Hughes'/Becker-Weidman's work and made their conclusions anyhow. The APSAC task-force report is a highly credible source.
You are referring to Dr. Becker-Weidman's two papers, only one of which was published in a peer-reviewed journal. Each paper used questionable research methods and also centered on the same research group. The fact that the claims were published are not indicative of whether or not they are true. Their publication does not even imply that a wide spectrum of experts would agree they are true. This single paper does not appear to be cited in any of the literature. Moreover, references to DDP in the academic literature are completely lacking aside from this single paper.
The many other references being used in this article are either 1.)Being used to support claims that the authors did not intend to make, or 2.)Works that are self-published or published outside of the traditional academic publishing process.
In regards to the APSAC task-force guidelines, nobody notable has asserted that this therapy follows the guidelines set forth in the APSAC task-force report aside from Dr. Becker-Weidman and he is a leading proponent of this therapy. Moreover, the assertions appear to have been made solely in self-published or non-academic sources. This point is particularly important because proponents of this therapy seem to incorrectly use the APSAC task-force report as some sort of endorsement.
I could publish a paper refuting the evidential basis of this therapy and then post a very good essay on the Internet where I say that the therapy does not follow the APSAC guidelines using Hughes' work to cite my claims. Would it be acceptable for us to copy my assertions verbatim as encyclopedic facts? We can both agree that the answer would be a strong no. Similarly, Becker-Weidman's and Hughes' claims should not be taken as encyclopedic facts.
Let's make note of minority opinions without pushing them or discrediting them. Let's also refrain from turning wikipedia into an advertisment for treatments used by the Center for Family Development; this was, after all, the original purpose of this essay before it found its way into wikipedia. shotwell 22:04, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

'Please report the correct facts:'

  1. Three peer-reviewed publications.
  2. The authors of the report acknowledge in a recent article that they wrote the report before the peer-reveiwed publications were published and even state, "In fact, the term dyadic developmental psychotherapy is not mentioed anywhere in the body of the Taks Force report. Dr. Becker-Weidman ius cited three times in the body of the report, noe of which refer to coercive techniques...Regarding the issue of empirical support, it is encourgain to see that outcome research on DDP was recently published in a peer-reviewed journal...We congratulate Dr. Becker-Weidman on this work and hope he will continue to expand these efforts..." and there is substantially more. (Child Maltreatment, 11,4, Nov 2006).
  3. See article for many other professional peer reviewed publications.

DPetersontalk 00:02, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Wow, thank-you very much for bringing that to my attention. You are correct that DDP is not mentioned in the APSAC task-force report. Let me clarify that I was not attempting to label DDP as coercive, I was simply questioning its evidential basis. You are taking that quote from the recent reply to letters in Child Maltreatment, which can be found at: http://cmx.sagepub.com/cgi/reprint/11/4/381. They also go on to say:

In our estimation, DDP still does not meet criteria as an evidence-based treatment, although the published findings do raise hopes that DDP may be promising. Following that statement they say exactly what I said about the single study performed. They also say: Although we did not discuss DDP in the report, it is worth considering, whether DDP is a concerning, coercive, abusive attachment therapy or a promising, nonconcerning, and noncoercive treatment. We hope it is the latter; however, it can be difficult to judge.

This strongly supports what I've been saying all along. I'll carefully read the rest of this and then edit as I see fit. This is a very valuable resource and I appreciate that you've brought it to my attention. shotwell 00:16, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I forgot to include this quote:
"Dr. Becker-Weidman (2006b) believed the report misrepresented DDP and his center as an example of dangerous or coercive techniques. We have been unable to locate this representation in the Task Force report. In fact, the term dyadic developmental psychotherapy is not mentioned anywhere in the body of the Task Force report. Dr. Becker-Weidman is cited three times in the body of the report, none of which refer to coercive techniques. The first citation references his Web site’s assertion that traditional therapies are either ineffective or harmful (p. 78). The second citation references his recommendation that children be encouraged to regress to an earlier age as part of treatment (p. 79). The third citation references his assertions, which we believe are unsupported, about practicing an evidence-based treatment (p. 85)."
My "facts" were quite right. shotwell 00:28, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

The report does not mention the other materials in peer-reviewed publications...again, because of the vagaries of publications dates and such. There are at least three peer-reviewed publications by Dr. Becker-Weidman and many others by other authors, such as Dr. Huges. Therefore, the statemets in the article are well sourced and referenced. You may quibble over whether there must be one, or two, or three, etc sources...but according to Wikipeida verifiable standard, the statements are, in fact, verifiable. DPetersontalk 01:17, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

As previously noted, the report states: 'The authors of the report acknowledge in a recent article that they wrote the report before the peer-reveiwed publications were published and even state, "In fact, the term dyadic developmental psychotherapy is not mentioed anywhere in the body of the Taks Force report. Dr. Becker-Weidman ius cited three times in the body of the report, noe of which refer to coercive techniques...Regarding the issue of empirical support, it is encourgain to see that outcome research on DDP was recently published in a peer-reviewed journal...We congratulate Dr. Becker-Weidman on this work and hope he will continue to expand these efforts..." and there is substantially more. (Child Maltreatment, 11,4, Nov 2006). '

While you may disagree, this does, in itself, represent a verifiable fact. JonesRDtalk 19:16, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Avoid making Unilateral Changes that do on represent consensus

It would be best if user:shotwell did not edit this article until there is agreement on the edits. Building agreement is not facilitated by making unilateral changes that can only further discord and disagreement. DPetersontalk 01:25, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

There is so much wrong with this article that I couldn't possibly list everything here to be debated ad nauseum. Furthermore, the {{verify}} tag is highly justified given the above discussion. Please refrain from removing it. shotwell 01:31, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
All other editors seem to disgaree with you. The article is very fully sourced with verifiable facts. While you may not like this, the references and citations meet Wikipedia standards. So far the consensus is to remove the tag. DPetersontalk 01:40, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
No, about six highly tendentious editors disagree with me. The article at http://cmx.sagepub.com/cgi/reprint/11/4/381 supports the notion that DDP is not widely regarded as having a solid evidential basis, being an effective treatment for RAD, or compliant with APSAC task-force guidelines. Many of the assertions here are highly dubious and need to be removed. I figured that the Child Maltreatment article you brought to my attention was proof enough of this fact and I edited accordingly; I guess I was wrong.
Because the assertions made here are challenged by a highly credible source and referenced by a much less credible source, I am going to insist that the tag stay in place. There is nothing wrong with noting the minority scientific opinions on these matters, but we should not assert them as if they were encyclopedic facts.
If you disagree with me, I would like for you to very carefully read what I have written, read http://cmx.sagepub.com/cgi/reprint/11/4/381, and then provide a rational counter-argument. shotwell 02:48, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

There are several peer-reviewed professional publications supporting the statements in the article. I know that you and User:Sarner don't accept this, but the fact remains that theese are verifiable facts and so meet Wikipedia standards. The article you cite does not state anywhere that "DDP is not widely regarded as having a solid evidential basis...." Your language and sentance structure is the same as that of User:Sarner. The factual statements in the article are not "challenged by a highly crredible source." As User:Sarner does, you may "insist" that you are right...but the fact remains that you are alone in your opinion.

There is nothing wrong with you stating a minority view here, if you wish.

If you disagree with me, please state specific chapter and verse from the article to the contrary. The article states clearly that they were not disparaging Dyadic Developmental Psycotherapy. You are misreading the article and not providing verifiable and quotes to support your statements.


We can see how the poll plays out and then decide if the tag stays or is removed. Remeber, you don't own this article nor can you hold hostage the article to your position if a different consensus emerges. DPetersontalk 03:13, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Really, the article is fine and the tag is just silly and unncessary, given the wide range of references cited. JohnsonRon 20:07, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Most of the references are either 1.) Self-published, 2.) Published in a publishing farm, or 3.) Totally unrelated. There is exactly one credible study and the methods of his study have been criticised by a very credible source[1].
This article currently amounts to little more than an advertisement for DDP. I see that the Center for Family Development charges quite a bit for DDP workshops [2][3] and appears to be one of the only (perhaps sole) organizations promoting this therapy. I am highly suspicious of the POV pushing being done on wikipedia regarding DDP. shotwell 22:08, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

You are, 'AGAIN' misrepsenting the material. The peer-reviewed professional publications are not not self-published or published in a "publishing farm" (whatever that is), or totally unrelated. All the references and citations are in professional peer-reviewed publications or printed by well known reputable publishers of scientific texts and psychologcy materials. There are many practitioners of Dyadic Developmental Psychotherpay...just like there may only be one Theraplay Institute, but many practitioners of this approach, to use an example for exposition purposes. The only POV pushing I see here is your material. DPetersontalk 22:44, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikify

In addition to having POV issues, this article was in dire need of some wikification. In doing the references, I was unable to find which claims the following references were supporting:

  1. Bowlby, J. (1969,1982) Attachment [Vol. 1 of Attachment and Loss]. London: Hogarth Press; New York, Basic Books; Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin (1971). ISBN 0-465-00543-8.
  2. Bowlby, J. (1973) Separation: Anxiety & Anger [Vol. 2 of Attachment and Loss]. London: Hogarth Press; New York: Basic Books; Harmondsworth: Penguin (1975). ISBN 0-465-09716-2.
  3. Bretherton, I. (1992) "The origins of attachment theory". Developmental Psychology, 28:759-775.
  4. Holmes, J. (1993) John Bowlby and Attachment Theory. London: Routledge. ISBN 0-415-07729-X.

If you can show me what claims they support, I'll add the reference tags. Moreover, one claim was referenced by (Dozier, 2001,(16) Tyrell 1999 (17)) and these papers were not listed in the references section. If someone could give me all the information about those, I'll add them in.

This is not an endorsement of the references; it just needed to be done because the article was nearly impossible to read. shotwell 00:53, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Didn't intend to blank part of it. The issue was a missing slash on a <ref> tag. shotwell 01:02, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
I am also going to reorganize it per the Manual of Style. If you don't like it, revert it. Please read the manual of style though. shotwell 01:19, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Quite helpful. I have added several references...I don't have the time at this moment to add the reference tags and such for all...but will do that later if you don't get to it first. I've also added several additional references. DPetersontalk 02:41, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Let's try again

I've been taking a break from this article. In this time, I've thought about my positions here, consulted with some researchers, finished reading Hughes' work, extensively studied attachment theory, and so forth. I also plan on obtaining the DDP tapes from the Center for Family Development. At this point, however, I feel that I am fully capable of discussing this topic. We should really be able to solve this through discussion alone. Please excuse me for being long-winded in this comment, but I'm hoping that it can spark some rational dialog. I do not believe wikipedia is the place to resolve scientific disputes or assess the merits of scientific theories. Researchers have disputes quite regularly and we should strive to accurately represent these disputes without endorsing either viewpoint. shotwell 22:30, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

There really is not dispute here. You may have a differing opinion, and you are very much entitled to that. But your opinions do not give you a basis for changing the article, given the facts and verifiable sources cited. DPetersontalk 02:11, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Effective, Evidence Based

It may well be the case that Becker-Weidman and Hughes have written about DDP. Hughes' books make a fine resource when it comes to understanding the practice of DDP and its theoretical motivation. His work does not, however, count as a reliable and independent source when it comes to claims about efficacy. Such claims are only credible if they come from an independent review board (this was noted in Child Maltreatment). Becker-Weidman's study was published in an academic journal, but this does not lead me to accept his conclusions. Papers are not accepted into journals based on whether or not the conclusions are true. If we ignore this important point, we'd find ourselves making a large number of highly erroneous claims across wikipedia. shotwell 22:30, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

The several publications in peer-reviewed professional publications do meet the Wikipedia standard for reliable and verifiable sources. The two Becker-Weidman studies were peer-reviewed and so represent credible and verifiable sources of reliable information. RalphLendertalk 23:41, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
You misunderstand me. I agree that the publications are valid and reliable sources. I do not believe that they support the assertion "DDP is evidence based and effective". shotwell 00:08, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

The publications clearly support the statements that Dyadic Devevelopmental Psychotherapy are evidence-based and effective...there are two empirical studies (that is evidence) regarding outcomes (that is the effective part). DPetersontalk 01:12, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Other researchers disagree with that conclusion. You seem to have misconceptions regarding the scientific process. Shall we go write that Adderral is a safe drug? How about we write that it is a dangerous drug? Shall we go write that vitamin C is an effective in preventing cancer? Declaring these things encyclopedic fact would be obviously misleading and potentially dangerous. I am not opposed to saying that a researcher did a study and found that DDP was effective (so long as we include the criticism). The status of DDP is not widely agreed upon in the scientific community. shotwell 02:00, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I think that is an over-reaching statement. There is verifiable sources for the statement in the article and that meets Wikipedia standards for an encyclopedia article's statments. DPetersontalk 02:58, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


DDP is still an open question. Thus far, it has been an essentially commercial therapy which is marketed directly to consumers (the term "Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy" appears to be trademarked, for example). DDP is not taught at any accredited institutions or endorsed by any major professional organization. There has been one study and that study was flawed according to leading experts acting on behalf of a highly reputable professional organization. Therefore, we cannot assert that DDP is effective. shotwell 22:30, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

The statement, "DDP is still an open question." Really makes not sense in the context of editing this article. SamDavidson 15:01, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

this paragraph has several errors:
  1. Dyadic Devvelopmental Psychotherapy is offered during the summer at Colby Collge in Maine and has been offered in various other professional training venues.
This is a true statement...see belowJohnsonRon 19:39, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
  1. Two professional peer reviewed empirical studies.
'The reference list has several articles in professional peer reviewed journals and two are empirical studies.'JohnsonRon 19:39, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
  1. Based on these facts, the statement that this treatment is effective is verifiable and factual.

RalphLendertalk 23:41, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I was unaware of the Colby College course. Is it offered regularly? Is it for credit? Does Colby college offer a graduate degree in psychology? Is that program accredited? What other 'professional training avenues' has it been taught at? I know that the Center for Family Development charges up to $875 for training in DDP. Can you be more specific on this point? shotwell 00:08, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
I've answered at least one of my questions. Colby is a four year liberal arts school, so they wouldn't offer a graduate program. I am having trouble finding any reference to Dyadic Developmental therapy on their site. Their course offering makes no mention and a google search restricted to their domain brings up nothing. Perhaps you could point me to the course listing? Do I have the wrong school?shotwell 00:16, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't see anything on the Colby College web site about DDP either. Perhaps what RalphLender really meant is that someone rents space from Colby College to offer a course on DDP there while the students are gone for the summer. Not quite the same thing as what he implied, is it? StokerAce 01:41, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe DDP is trademarked, so that is another error in your comments. If you contact Colby College you will find that it is part of their summer program...but this is really not the relevant issue...merely a "red herring" you raise. The relevant issues have been addressed above here, in previous sections, and in many many other sections above by many many other editors. There is no open question I can see here at all. DPetersontalk 01:15, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I meant to say that the status of DDP is an open question and the validity of the assertion is not dependent on the trademark. My comment about the trademark is due to a document somewhere (I can't presently find it, but I will) where either Hughes or Becker-Weidman writes "Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy®". You would know the trademark status, so I'll defer to your expertise while I investigate further.shotwell 02:00, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
I looked on their summer program web site (http://www.colby.edu/spec.prog/) and I don't see any reference to DDP. Does that mean we can safely say that Colby College has not "taken a position" on DDP?  ;) StokerAce 02:05, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Every summer for several years they offer material. DPetersontalk 02:55, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Could one use this course on their program of study? Does the college give credit for this course? shotwell 03:01, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
According to ACT's web site, a guy named Daniel Hughes "teaches his approach [to attachment therapy] to therapists and parents in continuing-education seminars (some connected with Colby College, Waterville, ME)." http://www.childrenintherapy.org/proponents/hughes.html Is this what DPeterson and RalphLender have in mind? That hardly qualifies as a course "offered at Colby College." It's not for credit, and it's not part of the curriculum. They just use the college's classrooms. StokerAce 03:51, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

'It certainly does since the college offers credit or CEU's. JohnsonRon 19:39, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank-you, I think you're correct. I should have done a general google search. Here is the seminar they're talking about. These 5 day seminars cost $475-$500 to attend ($1475 for the full sequence, paid to Daniel Hughes) and are not university courses. Thus, I will restate: DDP is not taught by any credible university. Furthermore, DDP is primarily (or solely) taught by its two developers in non-academic settings. I would expect much more of an effective, evidence-based treatment that is widely accepted by the scientific community to the point of being encyclopedic fact. shotwell 04:33, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Again, as in another section here, you mischaracterize Dr. Hughes and his work. I called Colby and you can get U credit and Continuing Medical Education Credits that are acceptable for licensure renewal for any or all of these classes. Colby is an academic setting. The approach has been taught at several universities as part of various classes. Furthermore, your issues here are really not relevant...SamDavidson 14:59, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

It is relevant because established treatments are taught at established institutions. I suppose I'll have to investigate further. What other universities are you talking about? shotwell 17:43, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
The ABSAC is very clear that DDP is not a coercive, intrusive, abusive treatment and lists the fourteen or so specific criteria listed. I see the references as fully satisfying WP:RS. The references are in professional peer-reviewed pubs. Edited by User:Shotwell per WP:BLP. Originally quoted a highly negative unsourced statement made by User:Shotwell and other such statements, clearly show you are not trying to achieve a NPOV here...your words are the same as those of Sarner and the ACT group. The authors of Child Maltreatment Task force clearly identify Dr. Hughes as 'NOT' being as you mischaracterize him or his work.SamDavidson 15:01, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
The APSAC report doesn't mention DDP. The authors said this directly when Becker-Weidman complained that he thought DDP was mischaracterized by the task-force report. My position concerning Hughes is well-founded given that Hughes wrote extensively on his activities and later changed his mind about them. This is why he excluded certain things from DDP. The Child Maltreatment reply noted as much. I haven't advocated for inclusion of this information about Hughes' abusive past, so I don't see how you can conclude I'm not trying to achieve npov. My concern is simply that the lead developer of this therapy formerly engaged in highly abusive techniques and now people say his technique satisfies ASPSAC guidelines, despite the lack of independent verification on the matter. Given his past activities and motivation (Foster Cline's work, for example), I don't feel that I can entirely trust his claims and I am almost certain that his claims can not be copied into wikipedia as fact. Now, I am not opposed to remarking that Hughes has specifically excluded certain abusive techniques from DDP and that the leading developers on DDP believe it satisfies a wide-variety of therapeutic guidelines. In fact, I think that inclusion of this information is necessary -- I just don't like the current wording. (All of these disputes would be immediately fixed if we would reword the claims to reflect that Becker-Weidman and Hughes are saying them, rather than imply wide scientific consensus by stating them as encyclopedic facts.) shotwell 16:39, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

The APSAC report states a number of positive and supportive statements regarding Dyadic Developmental Psychotheray and the work of Dr. Hughes and Dr. Becker-Weidman. As another has noted, stating "his abusive past" is really defamatory and shows a clear bias; making understandable your reluctance to accept the broad consensus here. The APSAC report was very favorable to the list of excluded trts and that is an example of how they do support the approach of DDP. The material Dr. Hughes published in peer reviewed professional journals does meet the Wikipeida standard of being verifiable. There is wide consensus (but not total agreement) on the "claims" and statements by virtue of their having been accepted in and published by professional organizations and professional publications. "Dr. Becker-Weidman is cited three times in the body of the report, none of which refer to coercive techniques...Regarding the issue of empirical support, it is encourgain to see that outcome research on DDP was recently published in a peer-reviewed journal...We congratulate Dr. Becker-Weidman on this work and hope he will continue to expand these efforts..." and there is substantially more. (Child Maltreatment, 11,4, Nov 2006). JohnsonRon 19:39, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

APSAC guidelines

Becker-Weidman's claims that this therapy satisfy certain therapeutic guidelines do not qualify as an independent source. I would only accept the inclusion of such a statement if a truly independent review board (such as the APSAC task-force) published this assertion. Members of the APSAC task-force said that, while they hope the therapy is non-coercive, they cannot be sure due to the lack of independent verification and general secrecy regarding DDP. It is remarkably important that we accurately represent these facts because the APSAC guidelines distinguish between child abuse and therapy. shotwell 22:30, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

You have not basis for making up your own standards for inclusion or exclusion. The statement meets the Wikipedia standards. RalphLendertalk 23:41, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
If the people who wrote these guidelines cannot say DDP satisfies the guidelines, why should we? They didn't say it was non-compliant, but they explicitly said that they were unsure if DDP is non-coercive. shotwell 00:08, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

They do say that DDP is not a coercive treatment....DPetersontalk 01:15, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

If you would just read what was already written...You riased this issue before and it was answered before...read above. 'The authors of the report acknowledge in a recent article that they wrote the report before the peer-reveiwed publications were published and even state, "In fact, the term dyadic developmental psychotherapy is not mentioed anywhere in the body of the Taks Force report. Dr. Becker-Weidman ius cited three times in the body of the report, none of which refer to coercive techniques...Regarding the issue of empirical support, it is encourgain to see that outcome research on DDP was recently published in a peer-reviewed journal...We congratulate Dr. Becker-Weidman on this work and hope he will continue to expand these efforts..." and there is substantially more. (Child Maltreatment, 11,4, Nov 2006). ' DPetersontalk 01:24, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

This quote you have provided is highly misleading. I've read the reply in Child Maltreatment and I am fully aware of what it said. The authors explicitly said that the therapy cannot be labelled as evidence based or effective. They said that independent review boards are the typical route for such things and they encouraged Dr. Becker-Weidman to continue publishing on the matter, although they expressed some very specific concerns with his previous study. They further requested that he remove claims concerning "traditional therapies" from his website. You must understand that Becker-Weidman's conclusion is extraordinary and it should be subjected to intense review inside the scientific community. The Child Maltreatment reply is part of that review. shotwell 01:38, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't see that they "explicity said that the therapy cannot be labelled as evidence based or effective." They specifically said, "it is encourgaging to see that outcome research on DDP was recently published in a peer-reviewed journal. This is an important first step..." They do say, "In our estimation, DDP still does not meet criteria as an evidence-based treatment, althoguht the published findings fo raise hopes that DDP may be promising." This is different than your characterization, which reveals a bias similiar to that of Sarner and StokerAce. Furthermore, since that there has been the second empirical study, which the authors did not have at the time of their response to the letter to the editor...

You may not agree with the material, but you really have no basis for stating that your opinion is the correct one and must be enforced here. There is clear evidence base from several sources. DPetersontalk 02:11, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Look far above this comment, I think I provided the relevant quotes concerning the Child Maltreatment reply. Furthermore, I am not stating that my opinion needs to be enforced here. I am asking for some rational (and perhaps tedious) discussion on the issue. I believe I said exactly that when I started this discussion up again. Further note that I haven't even edited the article. shotwell 02:37, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

As described here and elsewhere, these issues have been discussed in great detail on this talk page. The approach can be said to be evidence-based using Wikipedia standards of verifiability, are from reliable sources, and are, therefore, factual. There are several professional peer-reviewed publications to support this statement in the article's reference list. DPetersontalk 02:46, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Does this mean you are unwilling to discuss the matter further? shotwell 02:50, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Never said that. Only that there are several professional peer-reviewed publications in the article's reference section to support the statement that the treatment is evidence-based...outcomes studies provide verifiable evidence that meet Wikipedia verifiable standard. DPetersontalk 02:52, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Outcome studies can often be wrong, especially when the methods were flawed. Surely you don't mean to imply that we should prefer verifiable statements over true statements? Looking even further above, you might notice Jean Mercer's critical analysis. I've consulted with some statisticians on the matter and they've agreed that the methods were flawed (and the outcome of the second study was bizarre, how did you manage to keep every subject in a follow-up study?) None of this is necessary given the Child Maltreatment reply, which (as you admitted) says the therapy cannot be labelled as evidence based. How can we possibly say "DDP is evidence-based" when highly credible researchers asserted otherwise? I'm not trying to discredit DDP. I just don't want to endorse it as fact. I think we could come to a compromise here, do you? shotwell 05:07, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
The purpose of peer review is to eliminate studies that do not meet acceptable scientific standards. I can see clearly that you, Sarner and crew don't like that...but it remains a fact that the material is both verifiable and true. Maybe you don't have familiarity with the peer review process, and if so I'd encourge you to read up on it so that you can have confidence in the material published in the journals and other publications cited. DDP is evidence-based in that there is evidence in at least two professional peer reviewed publications and that meets the Wikipedia policy regarding the verifiability of statements. Again, your bias and your apparent working with Sarner/StokerAce comes through in your subtle "accusation" that DPeterson must be Dr. Becker-Weidman, "how did you manage to keep every subject in a follow-up study?" This really reduces your credibility here and on the other pages you have disputes on with ACT. JohnsonRon 19:39, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Ok, "you" was an honest mistake. In saying 'you', I was referring to the DDP community. You're all very clearly associated with DDP in some fashion, but I will be more careful in the future. I don't think this undermines your credibility and I'm not using it as some argument for my position. The RFCU I filed was declined without comment and I have completely dropped the issue of sock-puppetry. I think I acted properly in filing those requests, but when RFCU declined without further comment, I took it to mean that my reasoning was somehow flawed. I do not intend to raise the issue ever again unless presented with some compelling reason. I am still interested to know how every subject was retained. I am also interested to know if you believe that every published outcome study is valid. shotwell 20:23, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

From a previous section, this may shed light on the discussion: I ('MarkWood 20:32, 19 July 2006 (UTC)') thought it would be useful to put here material on how Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy complies with the APSAC Task Force Report and Recommendations: Report of the APSAC Task Force on Attachment Therapy, Reactive Attachment Disorder, and Attachment Problems. Child Maltreatment, 11 (1), 2006, pp 76-89.

This important document presents several recommendations regarding the evaluation and treatment of children with disorders of attachment. While the report itself is based on old, and in some cases outdated and incorrect information, the recommendations are valid and should be followed by all clinicians who work with children.

The Report recommends the following regarding the diagnosis and assessment of attachment problems (pg. 86):

1. Assessment should include information about patterns of behavior over time, and assessors should be cognizant that current behaviors may simply reflect adjustment to new or stressful circumstances.

2. Cultural issues should always be considered when assessing the adjustment of any child, especially in cross-cultural or international placements or adoptions. Behavior appear­ing deviant in one cultural setting may be normative for children from different cultural settings, and children placed cross­ culturally may experience unique adaptive challenges.

3. Assessment should include samples of behav­ior across situations and contexts. It should not be limited to problems in relationships with parents or primary caretakers and instead should include information regarding the child's interactions with multiple caregivers, such as teachers, day care providers, and peers. Diagnosis of RAD or other attachment problems should not be made solely based on a power struggle between the parent and child.

4. Assessment of attachment problems should not rely on overly broad, nonspecific, or unproven checklists. Screening checklists are valuable only if they have acceptable measurement properties when applied to the target populations where they will be used.

5. Assessment for attachment problems requires considerable diagnostic knowledge and skill, to accurately recognize attachment problems and to rule out competing diagnoses. Consequently, attachment problems should be diagnosed only by a trained, licensed mental health professional with considerable expertise in child development and differential diagnosis.

6. Assessment should first consider more com­mon disorders, conditions, and explana­tions for behavior before considering rarer ones. Assessors and caseworkers should be vigilant about the allure of rare disorders in the child maltreatment field and should be alert to the possibility of misdiagnosis.

7. Assessment should include family and care­giver factors and should not focus solely on the child.

8. Care should be taken to rule out conditions such as autism spectrum disorders, pervasive developmental disorder, childhood schizophrenia, genetic syndromes, or other conditions before making a diagnosis of attachment disorder. If necessary, special­ized assessment by professionals familiar with these disorders or syndromes should be considered.

9. Diagnosis of attachment disorder should never be made simply based on a child's sta­tus as maltreated, as having experienced trauma, as growing up in an institution, as being a foster or adoptive child, or simply because the child has experienced pathogenic care. Assessment should respect the fact that resiliency is common, even in the face of great adversity.

The assessment and evaluation process recommended by Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy, as described in the text, Creating Capacity for Attachment, edited by Becker-Weidman & Shell (2006)is a comprehensive evaluation of the child and family that considers strengths and weaknesses and that uses a variety of methodologies to gather information and evaluate the meaning of this data. Theassessment process is not limited exclusively to the assessment of attachment issues. Children who have chronic histories of maltreatment or institutional care may have a variety of issues that must be considered as part of a comprehensive assessment process. The evaluation inclues a screening for many issues including various mental health issues and diagnoses, sensory-integration issues, neuro-psychological issues, Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder and the effects of prenatal exposure to alcohol and drugs, and various learning issues.

The assessment includes a comprehensive review of documents including adoption summaries, school records, health records, and previous evaluations and reports. Interviews the caregivers to get a full understanding of the child’s current functioning, history, and concerns are part of the process. As part of this interview there is an assessment of the caregiver’s capacity of provide an attuned and emotionally responsive environment.

The parent’s reflective function and family of origin are important dimensions to be considered. The interview with the child includes a mental health assessment and the administration of several projective tests. The child is observed with the caregivers, and finally a variety of tests and measures are used to gather information from the child, caregivers, and teachers. The instruments commonly used include the following: Child Behavior Checklist (caregiver, child, and teacher versions), Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, House-Tree-Person Projective Test, Child Apperception Test, Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function (parent and teacher versions), Biography of parents, Day in the life of the Child narrative, Parent Stress Index, and, when indicated, we use a variety of structured observational methods and procedures such as the Ainsworth Strange Situation Protocol. Other tests and observational methods are used as indicated.

A more complete description of this assessment process and methodologies can be found in Becker-Weidman (2005) “The Logistics of Providing Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy,” In Creating Capacity for Attachment (Eds.) Arthur Becker-Weidman, Ph.D., & Deborah Shell, MA, Wood ‘N’ Barnes, OK: 2005, pp 43-56.

The Report recommends the following regarding treatment and interventions (pg. 86 - 87):

a. Treatment techniques or attachment parenting techniques involving physical coercion, psychologically or physically enforced holding, physical restraint, physical domination, provoked catharsis, ventilation of rage, age regression, humiliation, withholding or forcing food or water intake, prolonged social isolation, or assuming exaggerated levels of control and domination over a child are contraindicated because of risk of harm and absence of proven benefit and should not be used.

(1) This recommendation should not be interpreted as pertaining to common and widely accepted treatment or behavior management approaches used within reason, such as time-out, reward and punishment contingencies, occasional seclusion or physical restraint as necessary for physical safety, restriction of privileges, "grounding," offering physical comfort to a child, and so on.

b. Prognostications that certain children are destined to become psychopaths or predators should never be made based on early childhood behavior. These beliefs create an atmosphere condu­cive to overreaction and harsh or abusive treatment. Professionals should speak out against these and similar unfounded conceptualizations of children who are maltreated.

c. Intervention models that portray young children in negative ways, including describing certain groups of young children as pervasively manipulative, cunning, or deceitful, are not conducive to good treatment and may promote abusive practices. In general, child maltreatment professionals should be skeptical of treatments that describe children in pejorative terms or that advocate aggressive techniques for breaking down children's defenses.

d. Children's expressions of distress during therapy always should be taken seriously. Some valid psychological treatments may involve transitory and controlled emotional distress. However, deliberately seeking to provoke intense emotional distress or dismissing children's protests of distress is contraindicated and should not be done.

e. State-of-the-art, goal-directed, evidence-based approaches that fit the main presenting problem should be considered when selecting a first-line treatment. Where no evidence-based option exists or where evidence-based treatment options have been exhausted, alternative treatments with sound theory foundations and broad clinical acceptance are appropriate. Before attempting novel or highly unconventional treatments with untested benefits, the potential for psychological or physical harm should be carefully weighed.

f. First-line services for children described as having attachment problems should be founded on the core principles suggested by attachment theory, including caregiver and environmental stability, child safety, patience, sensitivity, consistency, and nurturance. Shorter term, goal-directed, focused, behavioral interventions targeted at increasing parent sensitivity should be considered as a first line treatment.

g. Treatment should involve parents and caregivers, including biological parents if reunification is an option. Fathers, and mothers, should be included if possible. Parents of children described as having attachment problems may benefit from on­going support and education. Parents should not be instructed to engage in psychologically or physically coercive techniques for therapeutic purposes, including those associated with any of the known child deaths.

The Informed Consent Document addresses each of these recommendations. Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy is an evidence-based treatment (See: Becker-Weidman, “Treatment for Children with Trauma-Attachment Disorders: Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy,” April 2006 issue of Child and Adolescent Social Work. Becker-Weidman, “The Effective Treatment of Abused Children with Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy,” in, Child Abuse and Its Impact, Frank Columbus, Ph.D. (Ed.) Nova Science Publishers, NY, 2006.). It is grounded in Attachment Theory and relies of the creation and maintenance of a safe and secure base from which the family can explore issues. Attunement, the reflective function, and developing and maintaining an emotionally sensitive and response environment are core features of the treatment and the parenting principals (See, for example, Miranda Ring, Ph.D., (2005), “For Parents,” in Creating Capacity For Attachment.).

Caregivers are always involved directly in treatment and are trained in attachment facilitating parenting methods that use an attuned sensitive and reflective approach. In no instances are coercive methods used. Dysregulation is never sought and on those rare instances in which a child becomes dysregulated, the therapist works actively and sensitively to re-regulate the child.

Other sections of the APSAC recommendations address the child welfare system and ethical standards. Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy complies with those recommendations. Specifically, the report recommended the following for the child welfare system:

Recommendations for child welfare

a. Treatment provided to children in the child welfare and foster care systems should be based on a careful assessment conducted by a qualified mental health professional with expertise in differential diagnosis and child development. Child welfare systems should guard against accepting treatment prescriptions based on word-of-mouth recruitment among foster caregivers or other lay individuals.

b. Child welfare systems should not tolerate any par­enting behaviors that normally would be considered emotionally abusive, physically abusive, or neglectful simply because they are, or are alleged to be, part of attachment treatment. For example, withholding food, water, or toilet access as punishment; exerting exaggerated levels of control over a child; restraining children as a treatment; or intentionally provoking out-of-control emotional distress should be evaluated as suspected abuse and handled accordingly.

The report recommended the following ethical standards.

Professionals should embrace high ethical standards concerning advertising treatment services to professional audiences and especially to lay audiences.

Claims of exclusive benefit (i.e., that no other treatments will work) should never be made. Claims of relative benefit (e.g., that one treatment works better than others) should only be made if there is adequate controlled trail scientific research to support the claim. Use of patient testimonials in marketing treatment services constitutes a dual relationship. Because of the potential for exploitation, the Task Force believes that patient testimonials should not be used to market treatment services. Unproven checklists or screening tools should not be posted on Web sites or disseminated to lay audiences. Screening checklists known to have adequate measurement properties and presented with qualifications may be appropriate. Information disseminated to the lay public should be carefully qualified. Advertising should not make claims of likely benefits that cannot be supported by scientific evidence and should fully disclose all known or reasonably foreseeable risks. the evaluation and treatment procedures and methodologies that are a part of Dyadic Developmental psychotherapy are all consistent with these recommendations. MarkWood 20:29, 19 July 2006 (UTC) MarkWood 20:32, 19 July 2006 (UTC) DPetersontalk 02:58, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

The authors of that task-force report later said in the Child Maltreatment reply:
Although we did not discuss DDP in the report, it is worth considering, whether DDP is a concerning, coercive, abusive attachment 
therapy or a promising, nonconcerning, and noncoercive treatment. We hope it is the latter; however, it can be difficult to judge.
This supports the notion that DDP is not known to satisfy therapeutic guidelines. Becker-Weidman can claim otherwise (and we should make note of his claims), but his claims do not satisfy WP:RS if we are to take them as fact. This point is important because it seems like those who market DDP incorrectly use the APSAC task-force report as some sort of endorsement. This wikipedia entry does the same thing. DDP's current incarnation seems harmless Comment removed by author per WP:BLP. We are making potentially dangerous claims if the abuse is an unspoken and persistent feature of DDP. It is hard to tell because the actual practice appears to be largely secretive unless one is willing to pay large sums of money. I hope to soon obtain the training videos. I've seen some other attachment therapy training videos and I would like to compare. On a sidenote, I don't really understand the persistent use of training videos in the attachment therapy culture. shotwell 05:07, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

The report is very clear that DDP is not a coercive, intrusive, abusive treatment and lists the fourteen or so specific criteria listed. I see the references as fully satisfying WP:RS. The references are in professional peer-reviewed pubs. Your personal attack on Dr. Hughes, "I wonder if his child abuse has truly stopped..." and other such statements, clearly show you are not trying to achieve a NPOV here...your words are the same as those of Sarner and the ACT group. The authors of Child Maltreatment Task force clearly identify Dr. Hughes as 'NOT' being as you mischaracterize him or his work. SamDavidson 14:56, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

As mentioned above, the APSAC task-force report does not mention DDP. As was further noted above, Hughes did engage in abusive practices and he later gave up those practices. The authors of the task-force report later found that to be a good thing, but they were still unclear as to whether or not DDP is a concerning or coercive therapy. I don't even know whether or not the therapy is abusive, Becker-Weidman's organization seems like a nice place that has even done some charity work for poor children. Moreover, DDP specifically makes a point of excluding certain practices. I couldn't possibly advocate for inserting pov I don't possess. I just want the article to reflect the fact that no independent source as declared the therapy as compliant. In general, independent review boards form a very critical part of our society. For example, food manufacturers seek independent verification to certify that their food is Kosher. Similarly, DDP should be subjected to independent review (which it has not) before we can declare that it is compliant in an encyclopedia. This is easy to fix, as all we need to do is change the claims to say something like "Becker-Weidman and Hughes say the therapy is compliant..." I would also like to see a brief note concerning what the APSAC authors said (but without asserting it as fact). shotwell 17:07, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
The purpose of peer review is to eliminate studies that do not meet acceptable scientific standards. I can see clearly that you, Sarner and crew don't like that...but it remains a fact that the material is both verifiable and true. Maybe you don't have familiarity with the peer review process, and if so I'd encourge you to read up on it so that you can have confidence in the material published in the journals and other publications cited. DDP is evidence-based in that there is evidence in at least two professional peer reviewed publications and that meets the Wikipedia policy regarding the verifiability of statements. JohnsonRon 19:39, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

"Grounded in the works of Bowlby"

DDP is certainly motivated by attachment theory, but it is misleading to say that the therapy is "grounded in the works of Bowlby". Such a proposition seems to imply that the treatment is theoretically sound. The truth of the matter is that DDP appears to make use of seemingly bizarre techniques which have little or no scientific basis. Becker-Weidman and Hughes are the only people making the claim concerning Bowlby. We can't reference the claim using their works because they are not independent sources. This should be easy to fix because we'd only need to change such assertions to "DDP is motivated by the work of Bowlby". shotwell 22:30, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Your statement is an opintion, not a fact. The fact is that the therapy is grounded in Bowlby's attachment theory as described in several verfiable and reliable sources. RalphLendertalk 23:41, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes, it is most certainly my opinion. The people claiming it is "grounded" in the works of Bowlby are the people who developed DDP. Their assertions in published mediums do not qualify as independent sources. Moreover, Hughes self-published or published with very low quality publishers for most or all of his works. DDP was not introduced through the standard academic channels. Until Becker-Weidman published a study, there had been no true scientific discourse on the topic. shotwell 00:08, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

The articles, books, and professional publications clearly support the statement that the therapy is grounded in the the works of Bowlby.DPetersontalk 01:24, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

No, they support the proposition "Proponents of DDP are motivated by the works of Bowlby". This issue may be easy to solve. What do you mean by "grounded"? When I read "grounded in the works of Bowlby", I read "the logical extension of Bowlby's attachment theory" or something similar. shotwell 02:03, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

The references and books provide verifiable evidence that the work is grounded in the work of Bowlby and his atttachment theory. Read, for example, the theory chapter in the book Dr. Becker-Weidman edited for one verifiable source. DPetersontalk 02:51, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm aware of the motivations for DDP. I'm not well-versed enough in psychology to determine if the motivation is logically or theoretically sound. Declaring that DDP is grounded in the works of Bowlby seems to imply that DDP is theoretically sound. I'm sure that Becker-Weidman and Hughes believe as much, but unless someone credible and independent says this, I believe we should just change the claims to "motivated by" or "Becker-Weidman and Hughes say...". The issue is that the developers of DDP could have made some theoretical mistake in reasoning and nobody credible aside from proponents of DDP have confirmed their reasoning. shotwell 16:48, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
The purpose of peer review is to eliminate studies that do not meet acceptable scientific standards. Maybe you don't have familiarity with the peer review process, and if so I'd encourge you to read up on it so that you can have confidence in the material published in the journals and other publications cited. DDP is evidence-based in that there is evidence in at least two professional peer reviewed publications and that meets the Wikipedia policy regarding the verifiability of statements. The chapter on theory in the book Dr. Becker-Weidman edited clearly describes the "grounding" of DDP in Attachment theory as so several of the articles by Dr. Hughes.JohnsonRon 19:39, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
I think you've misunderstood me. Becker-Weidman's book is not an independent source and we can't use it to assert that DDP is grounded in the works of Bowlby. What is wrong with saying "Hughes and Becker-Weidman were motivated by Bowlby's work on attachment"? This statement is more informative. Furthermore, it is most certainly true, whereas the statement "DDP is grounded in the work of Bowlbly" is ambiguous and potentially false. shotwell 20:55, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Solutions

These are the things that I'd like to see happen:

  • Remove assertions of efficacy. shotwell 22:30, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

'No basis for this'DPetersontalk 01:24, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Do you have a more reasonable answer? Can you address the Child Maltreatment conclusion? shotwell 02:26, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Change each claim concerning evidential basis to reflect the fact that a single academic study has been performed. Indicate that Child Maltreatment said the study is flawed. shotwell 22:30, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

'There is clear support for the evidential basis.DPetersontalk 01:24, 3 November 2006 (UTC)'

There is no clear support for evidential basis. Please see the Child Maltreatment conclusions. Those conclusions demonstrate that there needs to be further study. As I've addressed above, a single study does not allow us to make broad assertions of this nature.shotwell 02:26, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Change claims about being theoretically grounded to "motivated by the works of Bowlby". shotwell 22:30, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

'The articles, books, and professional publications clearly support the statement that the therapy is grounded in the the works of Bowlby. Therefore the statements as they are are verifiable and relaible'DPetersontalk 01:24, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Once again, the issue is not clear. If the issue were clear, we wouldn't be discussing this, Becker-Weidman would have never written to Child Maltreatment, and the editors would never have responded. It isn't clear in the scientific community and we need to represent the fact. shotwell 02:26, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Remove claims regarding the issue of compliance with APSAC (and APA, etc.) guidelines. The very people who wrote those guidelines are not sure of the fact (this should also be mentioned). shotwell 22:30, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

'See above for details.' Be sure to read the detail in several of the previous sectoins. 'The authors of the report acknowledge in a recent article that they wrote the report before the peer-reveiwed publications were published and even state, "In fact, the term dyadic developmental psychotherapy is not mentioed anywhere in the body of the Taks Force report. Dr. Becker-Weidman ius cited three times in the body of the report, noe of which refer to coercive techniques...Regarding the issue of empirical support, it is encourgain to see that outcome research on DDP was recently published in a peer-reviewed journal...We congratulate Dr. Becker-Weidman on this work and hope he will continue to expand these efforts..." and there is substantially more. (Child Maltreatment, 11,4, Nov 2006). ' DPetersontalk 01:24, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the task-force report authors clarified that DDP was not mentioned in the task-force report. It is worth noting that even Becker-Weidman appears to have been confused about the issue of DDP's mention in the APSAC report (as suggested by his letter to Child Maltreatment). As for your quote from the Child Maltreatment reply, you are very peculiarly misrepresenting the author's intentions of that reply. shotwell 02:26, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Make a very strong effort to represent the minority scientific viewpoint concerning the above matters. (e.g. indicate that Becker-Weidman says DDP satisfies APSAC guidelines) shotwell 22:30, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

'Misrepresentation' DPetersontalk 01:24, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I would say that two people constitutes a scientific minority. Could you please elaborate beyond a single word? shotwell 02:26, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Finally, this article doesn't actually explain DDP. Rather, it makes heavy use of ambiguous catch-phrases (Playful, Loving...) What do these mean in terms of practice? We need to clearly explain the practice of DDP. shotwell 22:30, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

'Several editors strongly disagree with you and find the article to be cogent and clear.'DPetersontalk 01:24, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but they all appear to be specialized in this area. Go read Spectrum of a C-star-algebra; it is clear to me, how about you? Luckily for this article, we could explain much of it in terms that ordinary people would understand. This is not a matter that we should need to argue about. I was hoping that some of the experts could work on making the article more clear when it comes to exlaining the practice of DDP. How does the therapist go about enacting PACE or PLACE? Doesn't every therapist seek to setup a safe environment? Could a random non-specialist person of average intelligence come here and understand generally understand what would happen during a DDP treatment? shotwell 02:26, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I am not trying to create an article that slanders DDP. I don't want us to broadly claim that DDP is ineffective, abusive, or theoretically unsound. I'm simply advocating for a fair and accurate depiction of the treatment. I am far from being an expert in these matters and I am likely to be wrong about some of the stuff above. If you disagree with me, please rationally and clearly explain your position. shotwell 22:30, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Your suggestions are not grounded in the facts and, as described above, are actually based on misconceptions, and mistatements. Therefore, they are not reasonable solutions and not consistent with Wikipedia standards or policy as described above. RalphLendertalk 23:41, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, I am apparently wrong about DDP not being taught anywhere. I will investigate that further. Aside from that point, I fail to see how you have addressed my concerns. shotwell 00:08, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Your "concerns" have been raised before by you and Sarner and others and adequately addressed each time. Please read the above sections from the beginning of the discussion page and you will find each point addressed

DPetersontalk 01:24, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and they were not adequetly adressed in my mind. Perhaps you could try to rephrase or expand upon your position? If presented with sufficiently reasonable arguments, I'd happily leave these issues alone. shotwell 02:26, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

See above discussions and the points I made regarding your suggestions. There is ample evidence to support each statement/section in the article using verifiable and reliable sources so that the sections meet Wikipedia standards. DPetersontalk 02:49, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Keep Article as written: Poll/comments

I find this article well written and the "concerns" in the previous section as having been adequately addressed many times as many other editors have commented on. This seems to be part of a long running disupte involving the Bowlby, Candace Newmaker, and Advocates for Children in Therapy articles. DPetersontalk 01:24, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

See dispute http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-10-07_Advocates_for_Children_in_Therapy

DPetersontalk 01:26, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I am confused about the section title "Keep article". I am not proposing that this article be deleted. shotwell 01:39, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I mean that, based on the substantial extent to which these issues have been debated here and on several other pages over a long period of time and that a large number of editors find the article acceptable, that the article stay as written and not be changed as you or Sarner have proposed. Each time the broad consensus has been to not make the changes that you have reintroducted here again. DPetersontalk 02:14, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Ah. I am still confused, but now for a different reason. No article on wikipedia is static and each article changes (for better or worse) as new editors are introduced into the fold. About six editors agree on this article and they're all specialized in this area. That does not constitute a broad consensus. Do you expect this article to remain static? shotwell 02:31, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
There is a broad consensus on the article's statements. While it is true that you and Sarner disagree, the fact is that a concensus exists. Furthermore, the basis for each point you dispute is verifiable (according to Wikipedia standards) and uses reliable sources. DPetersontalk 02:48, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Sarner is not taking part in this debate. Why bring him up? shotwell 17:11, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

POLL: 1. 'Yes, I agree' with Peterson's summary and believe a concensus exists that the material in the article is quite adequately sourced and referenced, does represent a large consensus, and meets the Wikipedia standard for being verifiable, therefore the suggested changes are not appropriate. RalphLendertalk 12:56, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe that a straw poll can resolve this dispute. Straw polls are typically used to quickly gauge whether or not there is consensus. It is pretty clear where everyone stands here. You might be interested to know, however, that there is a considerable dispute occurring over the "guidelines/essays/whatever" at WP:STRAW and WP:DDV. (part of a much more serious dispute than our own... arbitration, in fact). At any rate, it'd be helpful if you elaborated upon DPeterson's position as opposed to giving a restatement. shotwell 15:38, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

What the poll accomplishes is to determine how large a dispute exists and if there is a general (but not absolute) consensus...which may be the case here. DPetersontalk 20:48, 3 November 2006 (UTC) 2. Yes. A consensus seems to exist, except for one, that the material in this article is appropriately referenced with reliable and verifiable sources. JonesRDtalk 21:40, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Totally disputed tag

I've marked the article as being disputed for factual and npov issues. My reasons are well-documented above. These are substantial issues and they need to be addressed. shotwell 05:24, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

One editor's opinions, which are not based in fact and which are disputed by verifiable and reliable sources does not give you the right to post that tag, especially in the face of a large number of other editors who do not support your opinion but who do agree the facts support the referenced statements in the article. However, if you disgree, you are welcome to invoke mediation; although this dispute is already part of an ongoing mediation case. DPetersontalk 11:24, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't think Wikipedia policy calls for or allows the tag to be added if just one editor wants the tag and a preponderance of others feel the material is appropriately sourced...if I am wrong, please direct me to the proper Wikipedia policy page. In any event,the tag does not belong. SamDavidson 14:51, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
In regards to DPeterson's comment, there is no mediation regarding this dispute. I would prefer to solve these issues on the talk page -- it would only require that we all listen with an open mind and provide substantial arguments concerning our opinions. Mediation is simply a way to facilitate the sort of conversation that we should have on our own. Perhaps I'll request mediation in the future, but let's try managing our own informal mediation for now. Here is what I think you're saying to me:
  1. The assertions concerning efficacy are warranted because Becker-Weidman made the conclusions in his papers. The research was labelled as promising by Child Maltreatment and published in credible academic sources. As such, his papers satisfy the guidelines set forth in WP:RS. Therefore, the assertions about efficacy should stay per WP:V.
  2. The assertions about DDP being evidence-based are clearly true because research has been done, thus establishing an evidence-base. The research was published in a good journal. Moreover, this assertion is found in several other published books (such as the Becker-Weidman book) and all of those sources satisfy WP:RS. Therefore, it is fine to say that DDP is an evidence-based treatment.
  3. The assertions concerning compliance with therapeutic guidelines are warranted because both Becker-Weidman published these things in reliable sources. The Child Maltreatment letter did not label the practice as coercive and the APSAC report didn't mention DDP. Moreover, a feature of DDP is that it specifically excludes certain abusive techniques. Thus, we can say that DDP satisfies therapeutic guidelines.
  4. Becker-Weidman and Hughes explain at length how DDP is soundly grounded in the works of Bowlby. Those sources are reliable, and therefore we can reiterate the fact here.
Do I have your opinions correct? Please correct me where I'm wrong and tell me what I've left out. shotwell 15:28, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, this article's dispute is sort of wrapped up into the ongoing mediation case; at least as I read it. I don't think that the statements regarding efficacy are warranted only because of the two Becker-Weidman studies...there is material about Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy in a number of other peer-reviewed publications by several other authors in the reference section of the article. The evidence basis is founded on the two empirical studies. This is cited and used in several other peer reviewed publications, not just material written by Dr. Becker-Weidman. Again, zeroing in only on publications of Dr. Becker-Weidman leaves out other material. DPetersontalk 20:59, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, aside from those errors, have I given a proper characterization of your opinion? shotwell 21:05, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
The body of evidence is not merely what you have stated...I'd say that there is ample evidence (verifiable) that Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy is evidence-based, has efficacy, is grounded in Bowlby's Attachment Theory, etc. etc...

That the article contains well referenced and well sourced statements (meaning statements grounded in verifiable and accurate materials, much/most of which (see reference list)is in professional peer-reviewed publications) so many of the changes proposed are unnecessary for the article to be a Wikipedia encyclopedia article. I think that is a quick, high-level summary of my views. It would be useful to collect the opinions of other editors. DPetersontalk 22:23, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

This article is very well referenced with reliable and verifiable sources. The statements that Shotwell objects to have firm references to support them that meet Wikipeidia standards. JonesRDtalk 21:54, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

How do you suggest incorporating your view?

You seem to have some specific views (Shotwell). How do you propose to incorporate those into this article. Frankly these views make it very difficult to continue to assume good faith and that you are trying to present a NPOV. Your Views to be incorporated, how?

  1. "information about "Hughes' abusive past."" I think this represents a slander against Dr. Hughes and it not founded.
  2. "My concern is simply that the lead developer of this therapy formerly engaged in "highly abusive" techniques." Same as above.
  3. "Given his past activities and motivation (Foster Cline's work, for example), I don't feel that I can entirely trust his claims" Clearly not a NPOV and making it very difficult to continue to believe that your efforts are really in good faith. JonesRDtalk 21:54, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Those are my personal opinions; I came to them after reading Hughes' work. I do not wish for them to be in the article unless some reliable and notable source has made the claims. I don't really understand how this is a matter of assume good faith. Moreover, you are taking my words out of their proper context. I was attempting to demonstrate the importance of accurately representing DDP's compliance with therapeutic guidelines. That is, the developer of DDP has engaged in very coercive techniques in the past (he admits as much) and no independent reviewer has said that DDP is compliant with APSAC (or APA, etc..) guidelines. Saying that DDP is compliant with these guidelines is analogous to claiming some experimental drug is approved by the FDA. shotwell 22:15, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
I can see how a reader might wonder about how your personal views are influencing your suggestions and the tack you are taking.
I don't see where Dr. Hughes says that he engaged in "'very'" coercive techniques in the past. The material does say that the method is compliant with the APSAC guidelines and the APSAC report writers do acknowledge that they are 'not' saying the approach is coercive; this leads to compliance with the bulk of the guideline. It may be that your personal views cloud(or maybe bias is a better word?) your vision a bit on this and other related points.DPetersontalk 22:35, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
You're correct, he did not say "very". The point is simply that the APSAC didn't say DDP is non-coercive; no independent researcher has said this. I just want the claims regarding compliance to reflect that only Hughes and Becker-Weidman have made the assertion. I think that WP:NPOV#Attributing_and_substantiating_biased_statements is applicable. Please understand that I'd be equally concerned if this article said "DDP is non-compliant with x, y, and z". shotwell 23:58, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Actually APSAC did say the treatment is non-coercive, etc. Again, I suggest you consider how your biases may be preventing you from taking a NPOV.DPetersontalk 01:28, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Where did they say that? shotwell 01:36, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

'Their letter that you have already quoted from several times!'DPetersontalk 03:34, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Formal mediation

We're just repeating ourselves at this point. I think we ought to request formal mediation regarding this article. Who else agrees? shotwell 22:53, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, I just noticed that the the Requests for mediation is quite backlogged. If we go this route, it'll probably take awhile. shotwell 23:02, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
We already have a mediator involved in the case...let it proceed. It might help if you stated what you want, in specific language, on each of the pages you are disputing: Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy, Bowlby, Candace Newmaker, and Advocates for Children in Therapy. This way everyone could see how this all fits together and address all the related points in one organized and integrated manner. DPetersontalk 23:27, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Also could you address the point raised in the previous section:
I can see how a reader might wonder about how your personal views are influencing your suggestions and the tack you are taking.
I don't see where Dr. Hughes says that he engaged in "'very'" coercive techniques in the past. The material does say that the method is compliant with the APSAC guidelines and the APSAC report writers do acknowledge that they are 'not' saying the approach is coercive; this leads to compliance with the bulk of the guideline. It may be that your personal views cloud(or maybe bias is a better word?) your vision a bit on this and other related points.
DPetersontalk 23:29, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
There is already a mediator involved in the combined cases. Furthermore, I don't see why those pages should be held hostage to one person's views...especially when those same issues have been hashed out before. These are the same issues raised by the advocacy group Advocates for Children in Therapy, via their leader, Sarner. Discussing the issues is fine...However, as the previous editor suggests, I'd really like to see Shotwell's comments on his rather biased and extreme statements above. I feel that this page is just fine as it is and does not require any further editing as suggested by the lone editor, Shotwell.JonesRDtalk 20:39, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Ok, if everyone else wants to do it this way, then I'll agree. I think that if we mediate in this fashion, we'll have to do something to keep the mediation coherent and organized. I guess that would be up to the mediator though. shotwell 23:56, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, you could put here...or on your talk page...all the changes you want for each page. You could also address the concerns raised regarding the perceived biases you have evidenced. Finally, there remains the question for the mediator to assess regarding how much to do here given that there is a large number of editors feeling that this page is fine and you seem to be the only one wanting a chage. Ditto for the other pages. DPetersontalk 00:29, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Is there a Wikipedia standard or policy or position regarding a situation like this where there is just one editor with a view that is opposed to a significant number of other editors' views? It does seem that the issues on the pages were are all previously argued and resolved when Sarnter/ACT raised them. SamDavidson 15:22, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Possibly WP:CONSENSUS... Addhoc 15:52, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Interesting. As I read the position, it raises the question for me, as it has for other editors, about how much weight should be put on one lone editor's position, what seems a bit extreme. For instance, the policy states,

Good editors acknowledge that positions opposed to their own may be reasonable. However, stubborn insistence on an eccentric position, with refusal to consider other viewpoints in good faith, is not justified under Wikipedia's consensus practice.

It goes on to state,

In fact WP's standard way of operating is a rather good illustration of what it does mean: a mixture across the community of those who are largely agreed, some who disagree but 'agree to disagree' without disaffection, those who don't agree but give low priority to the given issue, those who disagree strongly but concede that there is a community view and respect it on that level, some vocal and unreconciled folk, some who operate 'outside the law'. You find out whether you have consensus, if not unanimity, when you try to build on it.

Precise numbers for "supermajority" are hard to establish, and Wikipedia is not a majoritarian democracy, so simple vote-counting should never be the key part of the interpretation of a debate. However, when supermajority voting is used, it should be seen as a process of 'testing' for consensus, rather than reaching consensus. The stated outcome is the best judgment of the facilitator, often an admin. If there is strong disagreement with the outcome from the Wikipedia community, it is clear that consensus has not been reached. Nevertheless, some mediators of often-used Wikipedia-space processes have placed importance on the proportion of concurring editors reaching a particular level. This issue is controversial, and there is no consensus about having numerical guidelines. That said, the numbers mentioned as being sufficient to reach supermajority vary from about 60% to over 80% depending upon the decision, with the more critical processes tending to have higher thresholds.

The positions taken by Shotwell seem very similiar to those taken by Sarner, which were adequately addressed and resolved before. So, I am wondering how much weight should be put on this one lone editors somewhat extreme positions. As described above, his "concerns" have been fully addressed, but just not to his satisfaction. JohnsonRon 19:55, 6

November 2006 (UTC)

Be that as it may (JohnsonRon), I think it would at least be keeping with the spirit of Wikipedia's open access that Shotwell state in one location his proposed changes, edits, deletions, etc for all the involved articles (this one, Advocates for Children in Therapy, Bowlby, Candace Newmaker). Give everyone an opportunity to see everything he suggests in one location and then see if some agreement or compromise can be reached...it if can, good, if not, it is important, I think, that at least an attempt be made. DPetersontalk 22:07, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

MEDIATION ENDED WITH AGREEMENT TO LEAVE ARTICLE AS IS

It appears that the dispute has been resolved and the mediation case can be closed with the result being the article as is. That is a fine resolution that appears to represent consensus. JonesRDtalk 21:20, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

It is fine for the mediation to be ended so long as that means that I don't have to argue this same issue for a third time! RalphLendertalk 00:19, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
This is an acceptable result. MarkWood 01:42, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

See Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-10-07 Advocates for Children in Therapy. shotwell 13:51, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

refs

I've tried googling for the ref no. 4 several times with no effect. The only site that comes up is Wikipedia! Can somebody check this ref please, or better still, provide a link. Fainites 22:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

If you look up the doi number you can find it...Also you can find it on the website for the Journal http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/toc/camh/0/0 in which it will be published. DPetersontalk 23:07, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Speaking of references, you may want to keep an eye out for an article by Pignotti and Mercer that will be in "Research on Social Work Practice" this summer. This paper critiques evidence that has been put forward in support of both holding therapy and DDP. Peer review is not the Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval; readers still need to examine evidence and conclusions with care. Incidentally, I'm surprised that DDP proponents are not listing a recent paper that argues in favor of their views.Jean Mercer 12:58, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
As one of the three leaders of the fringe advocacy group, ACT, your editorials and promotional materials are a bit suspect. Your continued attacks on this subject are curious given the multiple empirical research studies and othe material showing your statements to be false. DPetersontalk 13:01, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
But... doesn't the fact that it's peer-reviewed make my paper completely correct? That seems to be what you're saying about your own cited material. When everything is peer-reviewed, and yet the conclusions contradict each other, it's time to look at some of the details of the work, is it not? Speaking of curious, I'm curious as to what material other than empirical work would actually be relevant here, and why the conclusiveness of an investigation is not to be connected with the design. Is the argument now based on practice wisdom and family values, rather than an acceptable evidentiary basis? If so, this should be stated, rather than trying to bring these things under the EBP tent.(As to promotional materials, I don't think I personally have any, except my c.v.,nor editorials neither.)Jean Mercer 22:50, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Mercer, you are pushing your own material...DPeterson is not the author of any studies I can find on this subject. Furthermore, your background isn't clinical psychology, right? Your CV and bio show no licensure in NJ as a mental health professional...correct? or any clinical experience as a mental health practitioner, yes? Wikipedia requires that statements be verifiable and the statements and references cited meet that criteria...I recommend that you read the relevant Wikipedia statements. SamDavidson 00:31, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
I asked questions and provided verifiable information about publications. If you can't answer or use these, there's not much point in your contributing to the discussion-- that is, if the goal is to provide the public with suitable mental health information.If the goal is commercial benefit for persons unnamed, of course you are going about it in the right way.Jean Mercer 13:51, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Dr. Mercer, I think you missed the points previously stated. The article has several empirical studies as references. I also think Davidson's questions are legit. DPetersontalk 14:48, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Okay, guys. I started by telling you about some things to read, one of which supports your view. But if you don't want to read the literature, you needn't. Personally i find it useful.Jean Mercer 21:23, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Dr. Mercer, I think you missed the points previously stated. The article has several empirical studies connected with it. Is there a particular reason you don't wish to respond to the questions asked of you? DPetersontalk 21:29, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Certainly there's a particular reason. It's a total waste of everyone's time to do so-- time which you all could invest better in an extensive literature search, and time which I now plan to put into writing for publication and other professional obligations.Jean Mercer 22:03, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
It is a simple yes or no question. If you hold yourself out to be an "expert" in this area, then this is a relevant question DPetersontalk 22:38, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Evidence-Based

What is meant here by saying the treatment is "evidence-based"? Can someone clarify this? Thanks. StokerAce 17:20, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

See Craven & Lee (2006) for one example. In addition, the citations provided are empirical studies in professional peer-reviewed journals. RalphLendertalk 18:01, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Let me rephrase that: Can someone define "evidence-based" as used here? StokerAce 18:04, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Do you have this in mind or no: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence-based_medicine StokerAce 18:39, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

APSAC Report

Does anyone object to quoting from the APSAC report here in relation to its statements on DDP? StokerAce 17:32, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

If it is based on current information...however, the report did not include material from the publications cited here. Better to use something more current, such as Craven & Lee, (2006). RalphLendertalk 18:00, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
If I understand correctly, Craven & Lee say that DDP is "supported and acceptable." Is there any objection to quoting their description in this regard? As for APSAC, as long as it has not been criticized by more recent publications, it would seem to qualify as current. StokerAce 18:07, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Craven & Lee define it as evidence-based...that is what their article if about. If you are now moving the conflict here from Attachment Therapy or pushing your POV, then I would object...If you are raising issues that your group has already raised and that have been fully discussed, RfC'ed, Mediated, etc., that would be a problem. Your first step should be to read the talk page so that the same issue and old arguments are not just repeated. RalphLendertalk 19:42, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
I've seen the article and they don't use the term "evidence-based" to describe DDP. Can you give a page citation if you think otherwise? If the term is not used in the article, it does not seem appropriate to use it. "Supported and acceptable" would be OK because the article uses it. StokerAce 19:48, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
The article is about evidence base...furthermore, empirical studies in peer-reviewed journals are evidence of effectivenss and effacacy. I see that you are now bring the dispute from Attachment Therapy here...this only makes things worse, so please stop. RalphLendertalk 21:46, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure I'm following your response, so let me just clarify: Is it OK to characterize DDP as "supported and acceptable" as per the Craven & Lee article? StokerAce 22:42, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
No, empirical studies in peer-reviewed journals are not in themselves evidence of effectiveness and efficacy. It depends on the design, statistical analysis, and other factors about the study. Those who are quoting Craven and Lee must see that the very reason for the method C & L used is that published reports cannot necessarily be interpreted in the way you're claiming. What on earth would be the purpose of these "systematic research syntheses" if all journal reports were to be taken at face value? I caution you again against cherry-picking of data, a practice that's accepted in commercial circles but not professional ones.Jean Mercer 12:23, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
As a leader of the advocacy group ACT, you are certainly entitled to your view. Empirical studies in professional journals are evidence of efficacy and effictiveness...that is the point. Such research is often undertaken for the use by licensed mental health professionals. Since you have written in opposition to Craven & Lee, both licensed clinicians and professor in a Graduate University setting, your comments represent a clear bias and POV. RalphLendertalk 13:51, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
There are plenty of 'licensed mental health professionals' who would not know a valid study if it bit them. A lot those studies are used to market certain 'treatments' that have no scientific validity. Who is supposed to look out for the consumer of these therapies? The boards do nothing. There is no self-policing. The only thing that works is malpractise suits and those are hard to do. It's a buy beware situation. And unfortunately the buyers have cognition and emotional problems. It's the perfect place for charlatans to do their thing. Millions are spent on this AT therapy. Its a marketing gimmick. The real studies with control groups show it is no more effecive than music lessons or computer games. Oh sorry it is effective and beneficial... To the 'therapists' FatherTree 15:39, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Bringing this back to the points I raised, Ralph, let me just clarify: Is it OK to characterize DDP as "supported and acceptable" as per the Craven & Lee article? StokerAce 16:40, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
The article makes the point that it is evidence-based...I mean, there are already several empirical studies that show effectiveness while the control groups showed no improvement...This is verifable. JohnsonRon 16:50, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Ron: Would you agree that it's OK to quote from the article to the effect that the treatment is "supported and acceptable," the terms used in the article? StokerAce 17:02, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Of course you can quote that from Craven & Lee. It would be a good idea to include responses to Craven & Lee's classification, however. Jean Mercer71.251.135.135 18:19, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

It sounds like everyone agrees it should be added. I'll draft something up. StokerAce 21:03, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

NoI certainly do not agree. You are merely continuing your dispute here from the Attachment Therapy article. DPetersontalk 22:16, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm confused. RalphLender is the one who suggested adding stuff from the Craven & Lee piece. Why don't you want it in there? StokerAce 23:28, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't see that. But more to the point, this appears to be a disingenioius action. It seems your group is just attempting to continue the conflict form Attachment Therapy here with the same issues that have been previously addressed. DPetersontalk 01:17, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Look up a few paragraphs in this section. RalphLender says: "Better to use something more current, such as Craven & Lee, (2006)." So I don't see any conflict here. Given that, do you have any objection to adding material from Craven & Lee? StokerAce 02:47, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

But more to the point, this appears to be a disingenioius action. It seems your group is just attempting to continue the conflict form Attachment Therapy here with the same issues that have been previously addressed.DPetersontalk 02:58, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

But there's no conflict here. Everyone else wants it in. And Craven & Lee is new. The issue of whether it should be added has not been discussed before. What's your objection to adding it? StokerAce 03:07, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree that this appears to be a disingenious action. JonesRDtalk 18:35, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Re the discussion at the beginning of this thread, it is stated that AASPAC report did not have 'material from the publications cited here'. This is true in that they did not have Becker-Weidmans 2006 follow up study which came out after the report. He specifically raised this with the Taskforce in 2006 after the publication of the Taskforce report and they replied in November 06 to the effect that having examined the study they still did not consider it constituted an 'evidence-base'. They also criticised him for continuing to advertise his work as 'evidence-based'. They were referring to his website. I wonder what they would have thought of the dozens of sites here on Wiki where it is not only advertised as 'evidence-based' and 'effective' but sometimes the only evidence based and effective therapy for attachment disorders. Craven and Lee doesn't supercede this in any way as both papers are talking about the same work. I therefore propose we put in both papers, ie the Taskforce report and follow up aswell as Craven and Lee. Fainites 15:48, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


Carry over dispute from pending RfC

This is a carry-over of a dispute, the full details of which can be read in the RfC and associated talk page [[4]]. These very same issues were previously raised by this group, some of whom are leaders of ACT User:Sarner & User:Mercer and do have a financial stake in their position, resolved previously and then raised again. See, for example, [[5]], [[6]], [[7]], [[8]] JonesRDtalk 16:59, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Indeed, we've become rich beyond our wildest dreams, and are considering starting a clinic ourselves... do try to keep some perspective and realize that some of us actually care what happens to children and families. That's certainly what keeps me returning to Wiki, a venture in which i have no interest except my concern for the information the naive reader is receiving.Jean Mercer 18:25, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
As a leader of ACT, which published, sells, and promotes your books, you do clearly have a financial interest in your books, ACT, and the positions ACT pushes which promote sales of your materials. DPetersontalk 21:17, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Ironically, you are amongst those who insist on writing about ACT in every attachment therapy article. shotwell 02:08, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Avoiding the point that as a As a leader of ACT, which published, sells, and promotes Mercer, Sarner, & Rosa's books, Mercer does clearly have a financial interest in your books, ACT, and the positions ACT pushes which promote sales of her materials.
My books are probably not useful to Jean Mercer. If nothing else, they are pretty beaten up and coffee stained. I've been looking to buy Rudin's Functional Analysis... if Jean has that for a low price, I'd be pretty happy. shotwell 02:30, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
ACT has never published any books. I have published with Brooks/Cole and Praeger in the last ten years, and presently have a contract with Sage. I would not dream of any variety of self-publishing or printer-ready publishing through outfits like the Old Oaken Bucket Publishing Company.I have contributed royalties to ACT, which is a non-profit organization. I trust this clarifies the situation. Sorry, Shotwell, I only have statistics books. Jean Mercer 19:53, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
You are a leader of ACT and ACT promotes your book and so you have a financial interest in this dispute as it supports your/ACT positions and sales of your book. This is a huge conflict of interest. DPetersontalk 20:12, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
This "financial interest" talk about Jean Mercer is nonsense. Dr. Becker-Weidman runs expensive training courses on DDP through his Center (http://www.center4familydevelop.com/workshops.htm ), but we don't argue that he should not participate here or that his materials not be used. In fact, we welcome him. Wikipedia is open to everyone. The only constraint is that Wikipedia policies must be followed. Let's stay focused on that. StokerAce 23:11, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Actually, it is not nonsense. In fact, ethical standards of the APA would require reporting such conflict of interests. And, it is against Wikipedia standards and practice to self-promote as Mercer is doing. DPetersontalk 23:38, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, so would that apply to Dr. Becker-Weidman too? He did create the DDP page (among other things). StokerAce 00:08, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
That isn't the point, it is Mercer's finacial interests as a leader of ACT, which promotes her material. DPetersontalk 01:03, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Are you Dr. Becker-Weidman? FatherTree 15:05, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Whatever Mercer's financial interest is, it would seem to be far less that Dr. Becker-Weidman's. I'll leave this for now and let the mediator decide the relevance. StokerAce 01:09, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
If I can chime in here. Regardless, Mercer clearly has a financial interest here and she and the related group (some exclusively, others primarily) edit this and related pages. Mercer only edits these pages and given her finacial interest and conflict of interest as a leader of ACT, etc. this raises real questions about the legitimacy of the repeatedly raised and mediated and resolved issues....(see [[9]] for a table detailing this.) JonesRDtalk 14:59, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Bringing up Dr. Becker-Weidman is irrelevant to the issue of conflict of interest since Dr. BW is not editing this dispute. The conflict of interest of Mercer and Sarner, however, is quite salient and evident: Clearly Mercer, and now Sarner, have a conflict of interest. The facts are:

  1. Mercer and Sarner are leaders of ACT, which promites their book and materials and so
  2. They have a vested financial intererst in this dispute here and on several other articles.

Their "careers" in this area are built on the advocacy work of ACT, which actively pursues and fans this dispute for it's own purposes. They benefit from this. RalphLendertalk 13:48, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Dr. Becker-Weidman is not editing? Show us how you determined that. Thanks FatherTree 15:02, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Changing the subject again...the conflicts of interest here are very real, substantive, and disturbing. RalphLendertalk 21:16, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Not Changing the subject: above you claim Becker is not editing here and I am asking you how you determined that. FatherTree 21:29, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Tags added - FT2

I have tagged this article as "fansite" and "npov". Not being involved in the present edit war, and reading it from the RFC, it is clear to me (as an outsider) that there is significant non-neutral viewpoint in the work as it stands. If anyone would like to make a case that the introduction (or the article as a whole) is in fact compliant with WP:NPOV, that it represents the subject in an encyclopedic dispassionate style, or that it covers the topic paying due weight to the field and to different views, then I would be happy to discuss. For detailed comments, see the RFC page. In the meantime, I've tagged the item, pending resolution of the edit dispute. FT2 (Talk | email) 15:14, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. The article presents in a NPOV facts (evidence based support from studies and article in peer-reviewed publications), description of the treatment, etc. Maybe you can specify what is fanish about it. I am removing that tag...but leaving the dispute tag. There is a group of editors loosly affiliated with the group ACT that repeatedly takes positions against this and related articles. The same issues are raised, eventually mediated and resolved, only to be raised again by the same related group of editors. MarkWood 15:31, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
And who is loosley associated with the ACT? And what does that mean and how do you know that? Get your facts straight. Can DP come out and say is not Becker? FatherTree 15:45, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Virtually nothing has been resolved - yet. I have replaced FT2's tag.Fainites 15:54, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
The fan tag is not appropriate...read the criteria. DPetersontalk 16:31, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

You ought to discuss reverts of other editors edits before reverting you know. Fainites 16:39, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


MarkWood - The introduction is not a neutral representation of any subject. Nor even close to it. As an experienced editor, with zero history or axe to grind on DDP, I think you can take it as read that the judgement is a fair and balanced one, and if I had doubts, I would have asked first tagged after. {{Fansite}} is more helpful to a reader than the alternative, {{Advert}}, which I also considered.
The question of whether one group or another take a given position, does not change how the article reads. The appropriate criterion is simple: Does the article neutrally represent "DDP"? Is it balanced? Does it characterize rather than re-enact disputes in the subject? Does it read like a promotion piece, or a piece trying to emphasize a particular "angle" to the reader? is the tone encyclopedic? Does the introduction reflect a description of the topic and its context and give people a useful background, or does it suggest that there a problem with using Wikiepdia for view-pushing?
In the end, the article as it stands, is self-evidently not of a good quality, nor encyclopedic. It would be better if both sides found a position of Wikipedia:Consensus to agree upon. This shouldn't be hard to do. May I urge both sides to discuss what they can agree upon, on the talk page, and look hard at the intorduction and tell me whether you would expect a neutral article in any other reference text to start that way. I wouldn't, and I don't know any experienced Wikipedian who would. FT2 (Talk | email) 16:51, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Actually FT2 I suggest you look at the talkpage of Attachment Therapy where most of the arguments on the subject of promotion of DDP have gone on, to see whether or not you think reaching consensus isn't 'hard to do'. people have spent months and months trying to reach consensus on even the most basic facts and sources with little or no success. Mediation has been proposed but there now appears to be considerable resistance to it. Fainites 17:10, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
The article does not meet the criteria for a fan tag as I read the criteria. Since we disagree on that, the dispute tag could remain, I think. DPetersontalk 17:16, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Tag does not belong. RalphLendertalk 13:46, 22 May 2007 (UTC)