Psychology High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Medicine High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

See latest discussion here. CartoonDiablo (talk) 23:37, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He reverted again. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 00:06, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What a luck you both banterers didn't edit waring [1] --WSC ^® 00:33, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I won't exceed 2RR, even in such blatant cases of drive-by tagging as this. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 06:32, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Textpassage is still deficient. After CartoonDiablo add some more studies the heading is no longer fallacious. But the rest of my criticism is still current:

1. The sentence: "Cognitive behavioral therapy was the most effective therapy as compared to psychoanalysis and family or couples therapy." Thats not true. If you want to describe a short approach it's rather: "The survey found that CBT is more effective as psa and ft in specific disorders and specific treatment conditions." (by ignoring about 70 studies in 2004)
2. "The study used meta-analysis of over a hundred secondary studies" This sentence doesn't have a source. The french survey got such a bad quality, they doesn't list the studies they choose for there review or even cited them. I know some meta-analysis contains only 8 or 10 single rtc's. What makes the author sure, that the survey evaluated over a houndred secondary studies? Further, the study also use rct's if no meta-analysis was found. Or, I wouldn't to rule out that possibilitie, I didn't found a list or citatiation of the used studies. But meanwhile I've read the study (compulsorily) in parts. Thats the reason why the statement "of over a hundred secondary studies" is completeley imaginary. (there are a much more quality lecks)
3. "secondary studies" This term is wrong if you ask me. I know, en:wp calls meta-analyses AND peer-reviewed articles Secondary_source#In_science_and_medicine (without a source!). But in de:wp [2] you can read somthing different. In de:wp you can read secondary sources are overviews which based on so called primary sources. I saw how the anglophone Wikipedia works, just in this article here, an I trust the german more...
4. "to find some level of effectiveness" A bit fussy, but these are no "levels" of effectiveness but a statement if the treatment is proven (effective) or presumed (effectiv). Levels of efficacy are more differentiated. But, just as I said, a bit fussy if you see the other serious shortcomings of the text.
5. "Of the treatments CBT was found to be presumed or proven effective at treating schizophrenia, depression, bipolar disorder, panic disorder, post-traumatic stress, anxiety disorders, bulimia, anorexia, personality disorders and alcohol dependency." The main fault on this sentence is that he doesn't term the exact conditions of the treatment which was evaluated. E.g. "Schizophrenia (acute phase) with medical drugs" or "Depression, hospitalised on antidepressants" and so on.

There was been add a picture what replaces the table just been removed. You can't take Picture of the table seriously. This Picture of the table can't be found at the source so he was homemade by the user. The question is: Why was this special Table selected? I know much better studies wich also have tables and beeing much more cited by other scientists than this special survey was. I claim that this table was selected and refused by a picture shows the same as the table, to overstate the efficacy of CBT. The results of psychotherapy research as not as simple the table/picture suggest. If you wan't a pretty good chapter about the efficacy you have to give futher explanations. --WSC ^® 17:15, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In support of Widescreen here (but not the edit warring) the evidence for CBT has been disputed to my knowledge in the UK and publishing that table gives a misleading impression. Its cherry picking evidence to support a proposition.----Snowded ^TALK 03:23, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Care to explain how 100+ secondary reviews is cherry picking data? CartoonDiablo (talk) 03:49, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure from that comment how much you understand about research in this area. There is for example a dispute about the validity of self-reported results in the general evidence base for CBT which has gained momentum in the last five years. A lot of new work has been done since 2004 that would throw those claims into dispute. At the moment you are giving prominence to a one country study in a controversial area that is itself 8 years old. That is cherry picking as the table gives a false impression of CBT's position in the pantheon of methods. I can understand an advocate pushing it, but we have to be balanced here. ----Snowded ^TALK 04:08, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also having reviewed the material and links I can't see that you established a consensus to include the table. If you did please show me where otherwise it should be removed. ----Snowded ^TALK 04:24, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you exclude Widescreen -- and you should -- then there's a consensus. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 07:07, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's good to see, another expert of psychotherapy research (p.r.) is connected to this discussion. The frech survey is high selectiv and biased. The survey evalueted the field of efficacy with large restriction. For example, it evaluates only studies and meta-studies which exemine special disorders like schizophrenia or Depression (hospitalised). Thats o.k. but not the state of the art in p.r. A lot of efficacy-studies are examine larger defined disorder groups these for example or this one. The french survey doesn't reveal which kind of studies they included in there examniations. Because other releases in this area show that there a lot more studies [3] with other results. So you can't claime this survey as only significant. Futher, of course there are a lot of releases since 2004. So the survey doesn't represent the latest results. Thats why the survey is overstated at the article.

Not least the table, self-provided by CatoonDiablo, now added as picture, is a invalid shortcut of the study. Never showes the results of p.r. Not even in 2004. --WSC ^® 07:54, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm getting evidence from some colleagues and also establishing if the picture should be there. Please don't edit war in the meantime, and best to keep contributions short and specific. We can't question the french source, we can only report if it is questioned by other experts. So lets keep this calm and within the rules and we will get the article back on track ----Snowded ^TALK 08:46, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are right when you say, we can't report ur own critic. But I haven't done that. We as enzyclopedic authors have to select sources for our articles. Especially in a research field with houndreds of releases. My proposal was to have a look at the citatiations. Some think thats a quite good way to decide what the resonance of an scientiffic releas was. Fist CartoonDiablo talked about a thousends of citatiation. I found only one citatiation in Google-Scholar. But that wasn't right ther are much more, but the scholar seems to have problems with the french translation. So Scirus found about 40 citatiations. But any meta-analysis released in a famous magazine have over 100 citatiations. over 200 is not rarely. So we as authors can say, this survey is minor. But you are right, we can't report our own citic in articles. --WSC ^® 17:28, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think the dispute resolution was prematurely closed, I'm trying to get it re-opened and address the various points raised. CartoonDiablo (talk) 14:52, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But in the meantime you do not have consensus for insertion of the diagram. The majority opinion was that text was enough. Per WP:BRD you were bold, you were reverted discuss. Until you have agreement it goes. Deleting now ----Snowded ^TALK 20:40, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The prose is still lousy. --WSC ^® 20:55, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DRN has been re-opened, if someone can put the material back in while its being discussed I'd be appreciated. CartoonDiablo (talk) 02:55, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed material is only put back if a consensus is reached to do so. Please read up on process ----Snowded ^TALK 03:17, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The previous consensus was about the table, not the image. I'd suggest you self-revert since now it's technically an edit war bordering on 3RR. CartoonDiablo (talk) 03:52, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh please, the image contains the same material and it is referenced. See the comment on your talk page. You do not have consensus for its insertion. Also the editors at DRP also talked about the image so you plain wrong in your assertion there. I quote "That said, the inclusion of the table either as wikitable or as image results in improper weight on this meta-analysis, which itself contains quite a bit of errata" ----Snowded ^TALK 03:59, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What the material was is irrelevant, every dispute was about the presentation of the data. And there was no consensus for the image in the second dispute (which is what we're discussing now) ie that was the opinion of some editors regarding the image, the consensus was for removing the table.

But more importantly, none of this changes 3RR. CartoonDiablo (talk) 04:08, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See summary quotations on your talk page. The clear consensus was for using text not a table (and an image of a table is a table and that was also specifically rejected). Fully agree that nothing changes 3rr and if you continue to edit war until you have consensus on your side then you will end up at that notice board. Oh and the material is not irrelevant. Yes the prior dispute was about the image/table. The next task (and you may choose to make it a dispute) is to balance that text to reflect the overall position, not that of CBT advocates in a controversial area ----Snowded ^TALK 04:21, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I don't know what's going on at arbcom? I intend to change the text in all articles like I described it above. Any oppositions? --WSC ^® 11:15, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Complete opposition per all prior discussions. The disputed text is not in the articles, its still awaiting Arbcom decisions and you really don't want to start an edit war. Be patient. Propose the exact change you want on the talk page and allow other editors to commentate. If and only if they agree should an edit be made ----Snowded ^TALK 12:15, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

O.K. I wait for the arbcom decision. --WSC ^® 13:29, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

After the arbcom closed the case, it's necessary to change the wrong text about the survey first.

My next proposal is to use textbooks about efficacy, CBT or Clinical Psychology/Psychiatry which includes a OVERLOOK about the hole field of psychotherapy research. That should be a tertiery source, as cartoonDiabolo requires in the beginning of discussion. I hope, CartoonDiablo will accept this proposal. I think CartoonDiabolos overstating of this single study is caused in a keen to overstate the meaning of CBT. A paradigm in psychology which was foundet by Noam Chomsky the user state he's a fan of. But it's not impossible to have a serious collaboration in spite of that fact. The efficacy of CBT is well evaluated and it's possible to go back to many high-quality sources. It doesn't hurt that there are multiple textbook sources too. The more we have the more we can talk about a real NPOV. --WSC ^® 09:02, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Its being restored so its not closed yet. However I think it would be good if you drafted something along the lines you suggest above and post it here. I think we also need to reference the sources that challenge the way in which 'evidence' has been used to validate CBT in the UK (the one I know about) and the general controversies with the talking therapies in general. ----Snowded ^TALK 09:12, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sry, I don't suggested something along the lines, I'm able to read the source and classify it in the field of psychotherapy research. The source dosn't mention the choosen studys and list or cited them. Nobody is able to tell me which studys were selectet and how many. Futher it's cleare the study only sum up if the treatment is proven or not. They don't make a statement which one is more effactiv, for example. But these are all issues in psychotherapy research, you can find in any undergraduate textbook. So it's necessary to classify the survey in the hole field. That was not the aim of CartoonDiablos lousy contributions.

CartoonDiabolo itself worded the "prose" of the study in the article. With only one source: the study itself. Now I criticised that by an argumentation based on the study.

Please read the conclusion by the authors of this study itself: [4] Some citations:

• "The objective of this report is to assist decision-making in public health. It is based on the results of controlled trials conducted in the clinical population that are appropriate for this purpose, and without ignoring the methodological limits of such an exercise that are discussed at the beginning of the review."
• "The major criterion used to evaluate the efficacy of therapies is improvement in clinical symptoms."

Sorry, but I don't understand what you awaiting from me? My citic is based on facts taken from the study itself, CartoonDiabolo ignored or doesn't understand (by assuming AGF). What exactly is your critcism an my improvement suggestions?

Sry for my aggressiveness, but I'm stressed out of this discussion and still not amused of my 1 Week block. But for first I insist of change the text about the french survey as interim arrangement. Than I'll be game for a futher discussion. --WSC ^® 13:33, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

--WSC ^® 12:10, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Now we shoud search for reliabel sources to have a foundation. Because of the abundance of reliable sources it's necessary to compile selection criterias. My suggestions: 1. Overviews about which we can classify as tertiary sources. That means a overview about the field of studies and meta-studies. 2. High citatiations on google-scholar or other datatbases. 3. The period of publishing to exclude older releases. I would suggest not oder than five years? That means not older than 2007 or 2008. Since this time, a lot of studies were published.

1. [5] Embraced in scholar but without a citation count. Only the single chapters are embraced.
2. [6] published 2010; cited about 500 times

As access to the issue. --WSC ^® 08:21, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]