Are 25% of Clinicians Using Potentially Risky Therapeutic Practices?
A Review of the Logic and Methodology of the Poole, Lindsay et al. Study
"Are 25% of Clinicians Using Potentially Risky Therapeutic Practices? A Review of the Logic and Methodology of the Poole, Lindsay et al. Study" was published in the Journal of Psychiatry & Law, Summer, 1996, pages 277-298.
ABSTRACT: Conclusions from the Poole, Lindsay et al. study are often cited to document claims regarding the frequency and potential risks of using so-called suggestive memory recovery techniques or memory recovery therapies. This study has also been used to document the alleged number of persuaded clients who have developed false memories of childhood abuse. The basis for these claims seems questionable when the Poole, Lindsay et al. study is examined carefully. Lack of operational definitions, flawed survey construction, lack of face validity, misclassification of techniques, and fallacious inferences about causality, such as mistaking correlation for causation, make it impossible to use these data to draw scientific conclusions about the nature and outcomes of clinicians' practices.
- Memory, Abuse, and Science: Questioning Claims about the False Memory Syndrome [American Psychologist]
- Science As Careful Questioning: Are Claims of a False Memory Syndrome Epidemic Based on Empirical Evidence? [American Psychologist]
- Pseudoscience, Cross-examination, and Scientific Evidence in the Recovered Memory Controversy [Psychology, Public Policy, & Law]
- What Psychologists Better Know about Recovered Memories, Research, Lawsuits, and the Pivotal Experiment [Clinical Psychology: Science & Practice]
- The Facade of Scientific Documentation: A Case Study of Richard Ofshe's Analysis of the Paul Ingram Case [Psychology, Public Policy, & Law]