Norcross, J.C., Koocher, G.P., & Garafalo, A. (2006). Discredited psychological treatments and tests: A Delphi poll. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 37. 515-522.
Introduction
Around 2004, Norcross, Koocher and Garafalo searched widely for nominations for a list of psychological treatments that could be considered by some to be discredited. They came up with a list of 59 treatments, which included primal scream therapy (and also included treatments such as Angel therapy, pyramids, orgone therapy, crystal healing, past-lives therapy, etc).
Method
In October 2004 and February 2005, 101 psychology experts were surveyed. These experts consisted of clinical psychologists (PhDs = 94), psychiatrists (MDs = 3) or other mental health professionals (4). On average, these mental health professionals spent 21% of their time doing clinical work with patients, 20% teaching and 32% research. The average year of highest degree was 1971, and they had on average 33 years experience of mental health experience. 62% of these experts were primarily employed by a university department, 15% were in private practice, and 12% worked at a medical school.
These experts were asked to evaluate the 59 psychological treatments in terms of how discredited they thought they were. The scale they used ranged from:
1 – not at all discredited
2 – unlikely discredited
3 – possibly discredited
4 – probably discredited
5 – certainly discredited
The study was conducted in two parts, in October 2004 the experts were surveyed without them knowing how other experts had rated the treatments. In the second round, in February 2005, to mimic the consensus-building nature of treatment sciences, the same experts were given the overall results of the first round, and asked again to rate the treatments.
Results Pertaining to Primal Therapy.
In the first round, in October 2004, the experts rated “primal scream therapy for treatment of mental/behavioral disorders” an average of 4.51 on the discredited scale, the standard deviation from this mean was 0.77, and 5.9% of the experts indicated they were not sufficiently familiar with primal scream therapy treatment to indicate a score.
In the second round, in February 2005, the experts were again asked to rate the treatments, and this time they were given the results of their colleagues first round average scores. In this round, primal scream therapy was rated with an average score of 4.61 on the discredited scale, with a standard deviation of 0.72. 4.8% indicated they were not sufficiently familiar with the therapy, and did not rate the treatment.
Female mental health professionals (18% of sample) rated primal therapy slightly higher on the discredited scale than males, although both genders rated primal therapy high on the scale.
Discussion Pertaining to Primal Therapy.
Since primal scream therapy was rated 4.51 and then 4.61, the authors concluded that primal scream therapy was one of 14 treatments that mental experts considered “certainly discredited.” If we look back to the method section, we can see that a score of 4 indicated probably discredited, and a score of 5 indicated certainly discredited. A score of 4.61 indicates that more than half of the experts must have indicated that primal scream therapy was “certainly discredited” because the mean was higher than 4.5, and the other scorers must have rated a score of 4 or below.
When compared to other treatments that were evaluated, mental health experts rated primal scream therapy (M = 4.61, “certainly discredited”) as more discredited than*:
“standard prefrontal lobotomy” (M = 4.55, also “certainly discredited”),
“age regression methods for treating adults who may have been sexually abused as children” (M = 4.41, “probably discredited”),
“sexual reorientation/reparative therapy for homosexuality” (M = 4.29, “probably discredited”),
“neuro-linguistic programming” (M = 3.87, “probably discredited”),
“Freudian dream analysis” (M = 3.67, “probably discredited”),
“facilitated communication for treatment of autism” (M = 3.67, “probably discredited”),
“catharsis/ventilation treatment for anger disorders” (M = 3.53, “probably discredited”),
“psychotherapy for the treatment of penis envy” (M = 3.52, “probably discredited”),
“acupuncture for treatment of mental/behavioral disorders” (M = 3.48, “possibly discredited”),
“psychotherapy for castration anxiety” (M = 3.26, “possibly discredited”),
and “classical psychoanalysis for removal of Axis I symptoms” (M = 3.10, “possibly discredited”).
Notes: Professional Psychology: Research and Practice is a peer reviewed journal published by the American Psychological Association. This survey was conducted several years before this website, Debunking Primal Therapy came online.
Note. * “More discredited than” refers to a simple comparison on the average discredited score. Since I don’t have the raw data I cannot evaluate whether these differences are statistically significant in a t-test. It is possible therefore that because the means were close, there may be no statistical difference between the discredited ratings for primal scream therapy and prefrontal lobotomy.
Written July 2010.
Last Updated July 2010.
