EMDR and Grad School

[upgradeocelot]

I have been practicing with my master's degree and a license in my state. My organization requires all of its clinicians to be EMDR trained, so I have completed the EMDR training. Personally, I am not on the EMDR train, though I know the APA has it listed as an evidence based treatment. Based on perusing the forums, it looks like it might still be controversial in academic circles. Should I leave it off of my CV? How should I respond if it comes up? I don't know if it comes off as healthy skepticism or being overcritical if I don't fully endorse it, or if I seem like I am not able to critically evaluate treatments if I seem too onboard with it. This is a silly worry, I know, but I'm interested to see if this have ever come up for others.

Thank you!

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[AbnormalPsych]

I've never seen psychologists list treatments they know/use on their CVs. That would be a flag to me in reviewing for jobs or grad school. I'd wonder why they felt the need to do this.

What is this for? Are you applying for something? Depending on what this is for, the cover letter *might* be a place to discuss your approaches to care.

Edit: Re-read the title of the thread and see its for grad school. I think if you are applying for a lab/mentor with work in this area it would be nice to mention your prior training here, with this population, and demonstrate some knowledge. Be careful with specifics, you never know if someone has strong opinions about particular treatments and that sort of thing. If you are wanting to do work in an unrelated area, not so much necessary to get into the specific PTSD treatments you have used. The interview could be a good time to go further into your thoughts on EMDR and all.

 

[WisNeuro]

I'd mention the populations that I worked with in my CV. I'd leave the EMDR off and if asked, find a good way to discuss it. For example, if it seemed like you were on the EMDR train, i could see that as a big turnoff for some of the serious trauma people you may apply to work with if interested in that area.

 

[R. Matey]

Personally, I am not on the EMDR train, though I know the APA has it listed as an evidence based treatment. Based on perusing the forums, it looks like it might still be controversial in academic circles.

Keep in mind that current practice guidelines conditionally support this treatment because the protocol has stood up in clinical trials but not for the reasons that EMDR evangelists claim. More of a scientific admission than a full throated endorsement. You see a lot more embracing of EMDR at the master's level in my experience though I recently heard of some psychologists endorsing its use for their treatment centers.

How should I respond if it comes up? I don't know if it comes off as healthy skepticism or being overcritical if I don't fully endorse it, or if I seem like I am not able to critically evaluate treatments if I seem too onboard with it.

I think it's fine to be tentative given that it's not fully supported by the scientific community. You may ask your agency director if there are fine with you also learning a more established EBP for PTSD. Agree with @AbnormalPsych that I don't see a reason to list on your CV.

 

[cara susanna]

I wouldn't worry about being seen as overly critical or skeptical for having reservations about it, personally. It's okay to say that you know there is research supporting its efficacy, but that the actual therapeutic mechanism is disputed (basically, the evidence suggests that the eye movements don't matter and EMDR is just prolonged exposure with bells and whistles).

I only list VA cerification trainings that I've completed for EBPs on my CV. For those who don't know VA certification, that refer sto therapies where I attended a training workshop and then completed a certain amount of cases during the consultation period.

 

[thebalmofhurtminds]

Another realistic piece of this is that AT BEST it's prolonged exposure with bells and whistles. There are a number of people in my neck of the woods who offer "EMDR for pain " or "EMDR for depression" etc., in which I can only assume they take the least effective piece (eye movements), ditch the exposure, and apply it to anything they can.

It's true that this isn't always well known and psychiatry seems to endorse it more frequently than I would like.

 

[WisNeuro]

Another realistic piece of this is that AT BEST it's prolonged exposure with bells and whistles. There are a number of people in my neck of the woods who offer "EMDR for pain " or "EMDR for depression" etc., in which I can only assume they take the least effective piece (eye movements), ditch the exposure, and apply it to anything they can.

It's true that this isn't always well known and psychiatry seems to endorse it more frequently than I would like.

I've recently seen some hacks offering EMDR for Long-Covid round here.

 

[cara susanna]

Another realistic piece of this is that AT BEST it's prolonged exposure with bells and whistles. There are a number of people in my neck of the woods who offer "EMDR for pain " or "EMDR for depression" etc., in which I can only assume they take the least effective piece (eye movements), ditch the exposure, and apply it to anything they can.

It's true that this isn't always well known and psychiatry seems to endorse it more frequently than I would like.

Yeah, I've seen EMDR for substance abuse.

 

[futureapppsy2]

Yeah, I've seen EMDR for substance abuse.

What is the claimed mechanism of action in that, if they even bother to claim one?

 

[WisNeuro]

What is the claimed mechanism of action in that, if they even bother to claim one?

I can guarantee is involves a string of jargony pseudoneruroscience terms.

 

[deleted106747]

I saw EMDR for past life trauma.
By a licensed professional.
I’m not anti-EMDR. But… wow.

 

[WisNeuro]

I saw EMDR for past life trauma.
By a licensed professional.
I’m not anti-EMDR. But… wow.

Blaming your ****ty Life Syndrome on your parents is so two decades ago. It's time blame your SLS on past lives and a nebulous concept of trauma.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

I can guarantee is involves a string of jargony pseudoneruroscience terms.

100% this. I see EMDR being used for all sorts of BS stuff, and it's pure trash how it is being justified. The exposure component is known...the eye stuff (or other tapping BS) is a complete waste of time and I'm tired of seeing it used badly and endlessly. It is a grift 95 out of 100 times...and I'm being kind to those other 5.

 

[thebalmofhurtminds]

It's especially frustrating because patients don't know the difference and if you throw in "neuroscience-y" sounding words, you're hooking vulnerable populations. Just lovely.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

@upgradeocelot (awesome name btw) definitely be careful about throwing around EMDR when talking to potential mentors. I'm not in academia anymore, but I can say EMDR is not held in high regard by people in the know. You'll see physicians, NPs, and others mention it...but mostly it is anecdotal. Talking about it as something required by your org is prob the best (and most honest) way to frame it. I think having an understanding of why it is controversial (eye movement + junk science) and yet it somehow is approved (bc the exposure component can be helpful) would be helpful. The VA (*face palm*) legitimized it bc someone VA hospitals supported it, which helped spread the grift far and wide.

EMDR is basically junk science that someone copyrighted and sells through expensive training seminars, when really it is exposure therapy mixed with fake science sounding word salad. It has gained a lot of acceptance by targeting vulnerable populations and being an "alternative". Cult members...I mean "clinicians who use EMDR" get caught up in the science-sounding buzzwords and marketing, without understanding they are being sold a bunch of junk science. The devil is in the details, and in this case...there are A LOT of details that are glossed over. As a neuropsychologist, it is beyond frustrating to try and explain to clinicians who have drank the KoolAid that it is trash science.

Being able to talk about EMDR from a point of, "it's a treatment that my employer utilizes" is fine. Being open to learning more and openly acknowledging that you've read and heard that there are known limitations would probably be received better. EMDR is actually a great example for why someone may want to pursue additional training and education at the doctoral level. EMDR is largely marketed to mid-level providers and the "soft" science of it makes it sound appealing. There are plenty of doctoral level providers (*facepalm*) that drank the Koolaid too, but it's good that you are asking these questions because you don't want to be associated with any of those people.


side story: I actually had a former VA supervisor (10+ yrs ago) look into the research and try and see if any of the neurophysiology made sense, but he said it was mostly fluff and wild leaps in logic by people who didn't understand neurophysiology. He was just curious if we were being too harsh about it. It was already creeping into the VA back then because some community providers were doing it. We sometimes would review research articles about it if we had some extra time in supervision. Thankfully we stopped that after a couple of tries, but I appreciated that he was open to seeing what it was about. We did article reviews on the Rorschach too...and he wanted it to be more useful, but he admitted it was limited (especially given the time commitment v. a solid clinical interview)...but that's a topic for another time.

 

[cara susanna]

Yes, all of the EMDR people I know are Masters level therapists. It's sad because they really try to practice based on evidence and there is just so much misinformation about EMDR that is hard to combat (especially since, being in the VA, it is technically considered an EBP).

Although I shouldn't say it's all Masters-level people promoting EMDR coughvanderkolkcoughcough

 

[PsyDPlease!]

I am a psychologist undergoing my own EMDR therapy. Although it has been extremely effective, I think that it is due to the prolonged exposure each session rather than the eye movements itself. I think tracking with your eyes helps focus your attention better to the thoughts/memories that pop up during a session, but from my expierence I don’t think the eye movements are the causal factor in healing my brain/trauma.

As for your resume, put it on there if you know the organization uses it and don’t put it on there if you are unsure just to play it safe.

 

[WisNeuro]

I am a psychologist undergoing my own EMDR therapy. Although it has been extremely effective, I think that it is due to the prolonged exposure each session rather than the eye movements itself. I think tracking with your eyes helps focus your attention better to the thoughts/memories that pop up during a session, but from my expierence I don’t think the eye movements are the causal factor in healing my brain/trauma.

As for your resume, put it on there if you know the organization uses it and don’t put it on there if you are unsure just to play it safe.

Dismantling studies would wholeheartedly agree

 

[albatross_at_crossroads]

It's true that this isn't always well known and psychiatry seems to endorse it more frequently than I would like.

But whyyy? Sorry this is my own personal frustration since this year I frequently interacted with many Canadian psychiatrists and they keep pushing it like there's no tomorrow. It gets so ridiculous and it's so very frustrating (when I am not really in a position to debate them).

On topic: psychologists, especially in academia (so with a good understanding of the research) don't have the best opinion on EMDR. My former R1 academic mentor had a 3 hour class with many studies on why it's such a bad idea I would mention that your current org requires it, but then highlight your interest/ support of clear evidence-based treatments and go from there.

 

[cara susanna]

But whyyy? Sorry this is my own personal frustration since this year I frequently interacted with many Canadian psychiatrists and they keep pushing it like there's no tomorrow. It gets so ridiculous and it's so very frustrating (when I am not really in a position to debate them).

On topic: psychologists, especially in academia (so with a good understanding of the research) don't have the best opinion on EMDR. My former R1 academic mentor had a 3 hour class with many studies on why it's such a bad idea I would mention that your current org requires it, but then highlight your interest/ support of clear evidence-based treatments and go from there.

The best I can explain it is that EMDR has really fantastic marketing. We have patients contact our clinic looking for EMDR. I see people talking about how great EMDR is on (non-psychology) social media posts. It's also promoted by van der Kolk, who is very respected in the trauma field--I should add, for good reason, but lately he's really drunk some koolaid imo. van der Kolk has a whole institute of "experts" who go around promoting these therapies, including EMDR, which are supposed to be so much better because they're "somatic." He has books about it which are very popular with lay people. It boggles my mind that PE is branded by the public as the treatment that "tortures patients" when EMDR also has imaginal exposure components.

Overall, as someone who specializes in trauma I can tell you that for some reason this area seems to have so much more pseudoscience and floofy stuff than other areas. The APA div listserv constantly has discussions of non-evidence-based practices. The APA practice guidelines generated so much controversy for promoting evidence-based practice. I'm not sure why, but I think maybe because we tend to fragilize these patients and want to tell them that things will help other than decreasing avoidance and actually tolerating their distress?

 

[WisNeuro]

The best I can explain it is that EMDR has really fantastic marketing. We have patients contact our clinic looking for EMDR. I see people talking about how great EMDR is on (non-psychology) social media posts. It's also promoted by van der Kolk, who is very respected in the trauma field--I should add, for good reason, but lately he's really drunk some koolaid imo. van der Kolk has a whole institute of people who go around promoting these therapies, including EMDR, which are supposed to be so much better because they're "somatic." I specialize in trauma and I can tell you that for some reason this area has so much more pseudoscience and floofy stuff than other areas. I'm not sure why, but I think maybe because we tend to fragilize these patients?

It baffles my mind that PE is branded by the public as the treatment that "tortures patients" when EMDR also has imaginal exposure components.

Marketing and the money involved. Look at the popularity of the MBTI and its use in the business world despite having no validity and very poor reliability. Look at the use of the ImPACT testing for concussions across all levels of sport despite the severe flaws in the program and its complete lack of adequate validity checks. People like a good story and a "quick" fix.

 

[PsychPhDone]

It's also promoted by van der Kolk, who is very respected in the trauma field--I should add, for good reason, but lately he's really drunk some koolaid imo. van der Kolk has a whole institute of "experts" who go around promoting these therapies, including EMDR, which are supposed to be so much better because they're "somatic.

I know a lot of people love him.
I cringe.
You're totally right, lots of fringe/non science in trauma land

 

[R. Matey]

But whyyy? Sorry this is my own personal frustration since this year I frequently interacted with many Canadian psychiatrists and they keep pushing it like there's no tomorrow. It gets so ridiculous and it's so very frustrating (when I am not really in a position to debate them).

I've encountered this too, and I think it depends on the psychiatrist. Those who made an effort to understand psychotherapeutic theories and techniques seem to see more through the fog than those who view themselves primarily as doctors treating diseases. Putting myself in the latter position, I'd imagine the thinking is something like: "Well, it's therapy and it works, so who cares how." I think it just depends on the interaction between the training offered by the residency program and how seriously a resident takes that training. I've heard both stellar and cringey psychotherapeutic case cons from psychiatrists. But tend to agree that the cringey people are less open to the discussion.

The best I can explain it is that EMDR has really fantastic marketing. We have patients contact our clinic looking for EMDR. I see people talking about how great EMDR is on (non-psychology) social media posts. It's also promoted by van der Kolk, who is very respected in the trauma field--I should add, for good reason, but lately he's really drunk some koolaid imo. van der Kolk has a whole institute of "experts" who go around promoting these therapies, including EMDR, which are supposed to be so much better because they're "somatic." He has books about it which are very popular with lay people. It boggles my mind that PE is branded by the public as the treatment that "tortures patients" when EMDR also has imaginal exposure components.

I think people are inherently attracted to mysterious mechanisms that appear painless and are done to them vs. a treatment that requires effort on their part. EMDR fits that bill and there's just enough of a veil of expertise to make it appear legitimate in its own right.

 

[cara susanna]

I give a PTSD seminar series to our psychiatry residents and basically have a whole slide about why EMDR is controversial, including citations for some of the dismantling studies. So I'm doing my part!

 

[AbnormalPsych]

I give a PTSD seminar series to our psychiatry residents and basically have a whole slide about why EMDR is controversial, including citations for some of the dismantling studies. So I'm doing my part!

This is amazing, great work.
If you ever feel like sharing any part of that, please PM!

 

[cara susanna]

This is amazing, great work.
If you ever feel like sharing any part of that, please PM!

Thanks! I pretty much just took things from the Div 12 webpage on it Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder | Society of Clinical Psychology

 

[Fan_of_Meehl]

I have been practicing with my master's degree and a license in my state. My organization requires all of its clinicians to be EMDR trained, so I have completed the EMDR training. Personally, I am not on the EMDR train, though I know the APA has it listed as an evidence based treatment. Based on perusing the forums, it looks like it might still be controversial in academic circles. Should I leave it off of my CV? How should I respond if it comes up? I don't know if it comes off as healthy skepticism or being overcritical if I don't fully endorse it, or if I seem like I am not able to critically evaluate treatments if I seem too onboard with it. This is a silly worry, I know, but I'm interested to see if this have ever come up for others.

Thank you!

Google the phrase 'purple hat therapy.'

And, yes, I'm serious...dead serious.

A thorough grounding in the philosophy of science is likely the most crucial and generally underappreciated of all foundational competencies in the field of clinical psychology.

 

[Fan_of_Meehl]

The best I can explain it is that EMDR has really fantastic marketing. We have patients contact our clinic looking for EMDR. I see people talking about how great EMDR is on (non-psychology) social media posts. It's also promoted by van der Kolk, who is very respected in the trauma field--I should add, for good reason, but lately he's really drunk some koolaid imo. van der Kolk has a whole institute of "experts" who go around promoting these therapies, including EMDR, which are supposed to be so much better because they're "somatic." He has books about it which are very popular with lay people. It boggles my mind that PE is branded by the public as the treatment that "tortures patients" when EMDR also has imaginal exposure components.

Overall, as someone who specializes in trauma I can tell you that for some reason this area seems to have so much more pseudoscience and floofy stuff than other areas. The APA div listserv constantly has discussions of non-evidence-based practices. The APA practice guidelines generated so much controversy for promoting evidence-based practice. I'm not sure why, but I think maybe because we tend to fragilize these patients and want to tell them that things will help other than decreasing avoidance and actually tolerating their distress?

Yeah...it's hard to compete with the PR reach of The University of Facebook-Twitter...same story with marketing of service and/or emotional support animals.