Raising and lowering of heart rate variability: some clinical findings of Thought Field Therapy

The efficacy of thought field therapy and its impact on heart rate variability in student counseling: A randomized controlled trial

CONTEXT

Thought Field Therapy is an evidence-based method validated by 17 clinical trials, including five Randomized Controlled Trials. This study investigates whether a single Thought Field Therapy session can improve psychological issues such as stress, depression, and performance anxiety in university students.

METHODS

Fifty university students were randomly assigned to an intervention group or a waitlist control group. The intervention group received a single counseling session of Thought Field Therapy and was assessed by Subjective Units of Distress and Heart Rate Variability before and after the session. The waitlist group received Thought Field Therapy and was administered the Profile of Mood States Second Edition. All participants completed the latter after a waiting period of 1-3 weeks.

RESULTS

The 39 students who received Thought Field Therapy showed significantly higher Heart Rate Variability post-compared to pre-therapy (p < .001). The 33 students who were assessed for Subjective Units of Distress also reported significant improvements (p < .001) by a 91% reduction in distress for an average duration of 36 minutes. The Profile of Mood States Second Edition score did not show significant improvements in the intervention group (n = 24) as compared to the control group (n = 15).

CONCLUSION

A brief intervention of Thought Field Therapy can reduce stress and psychological distress among university students, and increase their physiological resilience in a limited timeframe, after a single session of counseling. However, the single session did not suffice to significantly improve their psychological conditions over the long term.

Conceptual and design essentials for evaluating mechanisms of change

BACKGROUND

Considerable progress has been made toward the development of evidence-based treatments for a wide range of psychological disorders; however, little is known about the mechanisms through which these treatments actually lead to clinical change. Although the use of traditional randomized controlled treatment designs and tests of statistical mediation have significantly advanced understanding of psychological treatments, they are insufficient to test mechanisms of change.

METHOD

This article outlines the conceptual and methodological requirements for evaluating mechanisms of change, highlights the importance of such a focus, and offers specific recommendations for research aimed at elucidating change mechanisms.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

Conceptualizing and conducting studies that test mechanisms of change requires substantial modifications to traditional research designs, but doing so will significantly enhance scientific understanding as well as the efficiency and effectiveness of clinical interventions.

Regarding the October 2001 Journal of Clinical Psychology special issue on Thought Field Therapy: retraction of conclusions in the article "heart rate variability as an outcome measure for Thought Field Therapy in clinical practice"

This article is a retraction of the conclusions drawn in a previous article, published as part of a special October 2001 issue of the Journal of Clinical Psychology on Thought Field Therapy (TFT). I decided to write this retraction after reconsidering a number of issues raised in the critiques of the articles. Additionally, subsequent misinterpretations of the literature on heart rate variability (HRV) by Roger Callahan, which led to further questioning of his premises and claims regarding TFT and HRV as represented in the articles, are discussed. I conclude that the burden of proof is on TFT proponents to demonstrate its efficacy and that well-designed controlled studies using standardized assessment measures and long-term follow-up must be performed to allow the scientific community to take claims made for TFT seriously.

Callahan fails to meet the burden of proof for Thought Field Therapy claims

Callahan's response evades the key issues raised by merely restating and elaborating upon what has already been said, providing citations that are out of context and irrelevant to the issues at hand, and misrepresenting what was actually said by his critics and me and the authors of articles he cites. He spends paragraphs refuting "straw men." He provides additional anecdotes, which offer no convincing evidence for his claims. His critics have expressed concern that Callahan and Thought Field Therapy (TFT) proponents will cite his response article, as published in the Journal of Clinical Psychology, to promote TFT, as TFT proponents have repeatedly done for the non-peer-reviewed earlier issue devoted to TFT. Callahan has been given an unprecedented opportunity to present his work in a reputable journal without prior peer review and has failed to meet the burden of proof for his claims, thus undermining his own claim, that his work has been rejected solely as a result of bias against innovation.

Power Therapies and possible threats to the science of psychology and psychiatry

OBJECTIVE

Advocates of new therapies frequently make bold claims regarding therapeutic effectiveness, particularly in response to disorders which have been traditionally treatment-refractory. This paper reviews a collection of new therapies collectively self-termed "The Power Therapies", outlining their proposed procedures and the evidence for and against their use. These therapies are then put to the test for pseudoscientific practice.

METHOD

Therapies were included which self-describe themselves as "Power Therapies". Published work searches were conducted on each therapy using Medline and PsychInfo databases for randomized controlled trials assessing their efficacy, except for the case of Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing (EMDR). Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing has more randomized controlled studies conducted on its efficacy than any other treatment for trauma and thus, previous meta-analyses were evaluated.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

It is concluded that these new therapies have offered no new scientifically valid theories of action, show only non-specific efficacy, show no evidence that they offer substantive improvements to extant psychiatric care, yet display many characteristics consistent with pseudoscience.

Evaluation of a meridian-based intervention, Emotional Freedom Techniques (EFT), for reducing specific phobias of small animals

This study explored whether a meridian-based procedure, Emotional Freedom Techniques (EFT), can reduce specific phobias of small animals under laboratory-controlled conditions. Randomly assigned participants were treated individually for 30 min with EFT (n = 18) or a comparison condition, diaphragmatic breathing (DB) (n = 17). ANOVAS revealed that EFT produced significantly greater improvement than did DB behaviorally and on three self-report measures, but not on pulse rate. The greater improvement for EFT was maintained, and possibly enhanced, at six- to nine-months follow-up on the behavioral measure. These findings suggest that a single treatment session using EFT to reduce specific phobias can produce valid behavioral and subjective effects. Some limitations of the study also are noted and clarifying research suggested.

Heart rate variability does not tap putative efficacy of Thought Field Therapy

Callahan (2001) has offered a series of case reports in an effort to validate the rationale and methods of Thought Field Therapy (TFT). These case reports employ subjective ratings, that is, the Subjective Units of Distress (SUD) rating scale as well as a gross measure of heart rate variability (HRV). My criticisms center around (a) inappropriately strong inferences given exclusive reliance on case reports, a potentially biased sample, and lack of appropriate controls; (b) misinterpretation of statistical artifact as systematic effect; (c) lack of systematic evaluation of HRV changes; and (d) erroneous interpretation of HRV. Callahan's article provides no evidence for the efficacy of TFT nor does it provide evidence for the credibility of TFT's rationale.

"Echo attributions" and other risks when publishing on novel therapies without peer review

A special series on Thought Field Therapy in the Journal of Clinical Psychology provides an opportunity for psychologists to learn about techniques and theories outside the mainstream of our field. Unfortunately, by publishing this series of manuscripts without meeting the standards of peer review, the Journal also provides an avenue for the misuse of its good reputation and the improper promotion of untested methods. "Echo attributions" can be made whereby an author attributes the source of his own words to the professional journal in which the text appears. Historical examples illustrate that such misuse of scientific journals and institutions occurs. A formal statement of guidelines is needed to instruct authors on appropriate versus unethical representations of their publications.