Good evidence-based trauma books?

[futureapppsy2]

Hi all,

One of my prac students is interested in accessible, clinically-focused books on trauma/PTSD treatment. She bought "The Body Keeps Score", but I wanted to steer her towards better, more evidence-based stuff. Any recommendations?

Thanks!

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[WisNeuro]

The chapter in Barlow's "Clinical Handbook of Psychological Disorders" may be a good starting place.

 

[summerbabe]

The Prolonged Exposure therapist guide from the Oxford 'Treatments that Work' series has some clear and accessible chapters on how avoidance contributes to the maintenance of PTSD symptoms and gives an overview of the emotional processing theory of PTSD treatment (and how to do PE).

 

[AbnormalPsych]

Trauma and Substance Abuse, Second Edition

This book is newly revised to include special settings (such as court systems and disasters) and special populations (such as veterans), clarifies issues specific to trauma, PTSD, and substance abuse and translates quantitative and qualitative data into recommendations for clinicians...

www.apa.org

 

[PsyDr]

Calhoun, L. G. and R. G. Tedeschi (2006). Handbook of Posttraumatic Growth: Research and Practice

Important to know how the majority of people respond to trauma.

 

[SomeGreatNotion]

Not entirely devoted to trauma but useful nonetheless... Attachement in Psychotherapy by David Wallin

 

[Fan_of_Meehl]

Treating PTSD With Cognitive-Behavioral Therapies: Interventions That Work (2014) by Monson and Shnaider by APA Press might fit the bill. It's concise, goes over PE and CPT and even delves into theory but is very accessible.

 

[DR@my]

I'm curious as to why steer the student away from van der Kolk? He's a psychiatrist and researcher in the domain of PTSD. I'm confused why that wouldn't be considered sufficiently evidence-based, given his focus on neuroscience and psychophysiology in the context of trauma. Could you elaborate your concerns OP? Or was it just an interest in a more "hands on" clinical treatment approach for your student?

 

[AbnormalPsych]

He's lost some clout in the trauma world recently with what he is disseminating these days (pushing on mid-levels and new trainees who don't know better), oh and those allegations against him....

 

[futureapppsy2]

I'm curious as to why steer the student away from van der Kolk? He's a psychiatrist and researcher in the domain of PTSD. I'm confused why that wouldn't be considered sufficiently evidence-based, given his focus on neuroscience and psychophysiology in the context of trauma. Could you elaborate your concerns OP? Or was it just an interest in a more "hands on" clinical treatment approach for your student?

A lot of what he pushes in The Body Keeps Score goes waaaay beyond the research and ignores the considerable bulk of research on PTSD treatment.

 

[cara susanna]

I'm curious as to why steer the student away from van der Kolk? He's a psychiatrist and researcher in the domain of PTSD. I'm confused why that wouldn't be considered sufficiently evidence-based, given his focus on neuroscience and psychophysiology in the context of trauma. Could you elaborate your concerns OP? Or was it just an interest in a more "hands on" clinical treatment approach for your student?

He's bought into the anti-PE, pro-EMDR Kool-aid in recent years. I think that The Body Keeps Score is still worth reading, but only within a certain context. I'm afraid of what someone who is less familiar with PTSD research and treatment may take away from it.

 

[WisNeuro]

I'm curious as to why steer the student away from van der Kolk? He's a psychiatrist and researcher in the domain of PTSD. I'm confused why that wouldn't be considered sufficiently evidence-based, given his focus on neuroscience and psychophysiology in the context of trauma. Could you elaborate your concerns OP? Or was it just an interest in a more "hands on" clinical treatment approach for your student?

Because once someone catches a case of pseudoscience, it's really hard to get it out of them.

 

[PsychPhDone]

Hi all,

One of my prac students is interested in accessible, clinically-focused books on trauma/PTSD treatment. She bought "The Body Keeps Score", but I wanted to steer her towards better, more evidence-based stuff. Any recommendations?

Thanks!

Here I was, looking at the thread title, hoping we could have a nice peaceful discussion without mentioning van der kolk, and he's right there in the original post.

Edited: and then again. I haven't even had breakfast yet.

 

[conky124]

Calhoun, L. G. and R. G. Tedeschi (2006). Handbook of Posttraumatic Growth: Research and Practice

Important to know how the majority of people respond to trauma.

Isn't post traumatic growth considered by recent research to be bogus now?
Also I interviewed with Tedeschi, he was a jerk
-sorry for off topic post but not a fan of that guy

 

[WisNeuro]

Isn't post traumatic growth considered by recent research to be bogus now?
Also I interviewed with Tedeschi, he was a jerk
-sorry for off topic post but not a fan of that guy

Not really, they have reconceptualized some of the old framework to account for more recent research, but it's still an ongoing field.

 

[futureapppsy2]

Isn't post traumatic growth considered by recent research to be bogus now?
Also I interviewed with Tedeschi, he was a jerk
-sorry for off topic post but not a fan of that guy

Not that I know of? Most people who experience trauma don't develop full-blown PTSD, with most staying near baseline or returning to baseline within a few weeks, some improve above baseline (post-traumatic growth), and some develop PTSD.

 

[conky124]

Not that I know of? Most people who experience trauma don't develop full-blown PTSD, with most staying near baseline or returning to baseline within a few weeks, some improve above baseline (post-traumatic growth), and some develop PTSD.

and @WisNeuro
I see yeah after looking into it PTG seems to lack construct validity. I study PTSD and do know about the large majority of people [not developing PTSD] following a Criterion A trauma. I guess what I think might be bogus is this idea that the trauma itself would cause growth (or that which does not kill you makes you stronger), I think that any growth or lack of symptoms following trauma is more a result of resilience patterns, such as discussed by Bonnano. It appears the research is attempting to address that debate so it seems worthwhile to study.

edit: realized I didn't complete that sentence I meant to say above, derp

 

[PsyDr]

Isn't post traumatic growth considered by recent research to be bogus now?
Also I interviewed with Tedeschi, he was a jerk
-sorry for off topic post but not a fan of that guy

That is not really my read of the literature. There’s definitely significant development, revisions, and modifications in this literature. Is it the trauma or is it innate factors or a combo? That’s an interesting question. I don’t know if anyone has answered that definitively.

I recommended that book because I think it’s important to know normative/healthy outcomes before you learn about pathological outcomes. I think people don’t like it because it screws up attribution.

There’s plenty of jerks in this field. That doesn’t mean they are wrong.

 

[WisNeuro]

and @WisNeuro
I see yeah after looking into it PTG seems to lack construct validity. I study PTSD and do know about the large majority of people not following a Criterion A trauma. I guess what I think might be bogus is this idea that the trauma itself would cause growth (or that which does not kill you makes you stronger), I think that any growth or lack of symptoms following trauma is more a result of resilience patterns, such as discussed by Bonnano. It appears the research is attempting to address that debate so it seems worthwhile to study.

The modal response is definitely return to baseline, as in most of Rutter's and Bonnano's work, even in the face of pretty chronic and horrific trauma. But, there is definitely some compelling evidence to suggest that some people experience growth or a sort of steeling effect in some areas of their psychology. As @PsyDr stated, there has been a lot of modification in the core conceptual model. PTSD and resilience were actually my areas of study for most of my early career, and where the majority of my publications fall. One of the methodological issues with PTG is similar to resilience in that there are a boatload of definitions of what it is, and even more measures to capture whatever a certain research line defines it as in a specific sense, aside from the overarching idea.

 

[conky124]

That is not really my read of the literature. There’s definitely significant development, revisions, and modifications in this literature. Is it the trauma or is it innate factors or a combo? That’s an interesting question. I don’t know if anyone has answered that definitively.

I recommended that book because I think it’s important to know normative/healthy outcomes before you learn about pathological outcomes. I think people don’t like it because it screws up attribution.

There’s plenty of jerks in this field. That doesn’t mean they are wrong.

very true and some are very on point, also I'm now interested in that book.

 

[conky124]

The modal response is definitely return to baseline, as in most of Rutter's and Bonnano's work, even in the face of pretty chronic and horrific trauma. But, there is definitely some compelling evidence to suggest that some people experience growth or a sort of steeling effect in some areas of their psychology. As @PsyDr stated, there has been a lot of modification in the core conceptual model. PTSD and resilience were actually my areas of study for most of my early career, and where the majority of my publications fall. One of the methodological issues with PTG is similar to resilience in that there are a boatload of definitions of what it is, and even more measures to capture whatever a certain research line defines it as in a specific sense, aside from the overarching idea.

Interesting... yes a lot I don't know about the PTG area.

 

[Spydra]

Ok so I understand that The Body Keeps The Score is not well regarded and I have not read it so I will pass. However, is the tide also shifting away from van der Kolk's earlier book Traumatic Stress? I am not a PTSD expert, but that was a book included in my training and while I am still a student it would be helpful to know if the field has already moved on from what I just learned.

 

[WisNeuro]

Ok so I understand that The Body Keeps The Score is not well regarded and I have not read it so I will pass. However, is the tide also shifting away from van der Kolk's earlier book Traumatic Stress? I am not a PTSD expert, but that was a book included in my training and while I am still a student it would be helpful to know if the field has already moved on from what I just learned.

From what I remember, early work was ok, but it's been a while. The early PE stuff (Foa, Cahill) is good and still mostly unchanged, also look into the CPT stuff (Resick, Monson, Chard). Also, if I remember correctly, Cahill has a good pub on the dismantling research of EMDR that outlines why the eye movements are rubbish.

 

[cara susanna]

Yup, early van der Kolk should be fine. Like I said, I even wouldn't recommend against The Body Keeps Score as long as you're aware of the issues surrounding it.

 

[Spydra]

From what I remember, early work was ok, but it's been a while. The early PE stuff (Foa, Cahill) is good and still mostly unchanged, also look into the CPT stuff (Resick, Monson, Chard). Also, if I remember correctly, Cahill has a good pub on the dismantling research of EMDR that outlines why the eye movements are rubbish.

Yes I have consistently learned that EMDR is rubbish and have not wasted any time on learning it. Thanks for the other sources to add to my list.