Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Template for Developing Guidelines for the Evaluation of the Clinical Efficacy of Psychophysiological Interventions

  • Published:
Applied Psychophysiology and Biofeedback Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

An essential function of both the Association for Applied Psychophysiology and Biofeedback (AAPB) and the Society for Neuronal Regulation (SNR) is the systematic evaluation of psychophysiological interventions that have been developed for the treatment of medical and psychiatric disorders. In order to address scientific concerns regarding the efficacy of specific clinical applications of biofeedback, these two societies formed and Efficacy Task Force. The process to be used in the assessment of treatment efficacy, specificity and clinical utility is presented in the form of a template that will serve as the foundation for a series of scientific reviews and practice guidlines to be published by both societies.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. This is similar to the “Dodo Bird Verdict” resulting from studies of the efficacy of different bona fide psychotherapies. It is suggested by some that available evidence supports the idea that all psychotherapies are nearly equal in terms of efficacy, see Wampold, D. E., Mondin, G.W., Moody, M., and Ahn, H. (1997). The flat earth as a metaphor for the evidence of uniform efficacy of bona fide psychotherapies: Reply to Crits-Christoph (1997) and Howard et al. (1997). Psychological Bulletin, 122 (3): 226–230.

  2. While the use of randomized, controlled group designs enables a clinical researcher to control for certain sources of experimental “error,” it is erroneous to conclude that well-designed, case-controlled studies are of limited value. See Benson and Hartz (2000) for a comprehensive review of this topic.

REFERENCES

  • Benson, K., & Hartz, A. J. (2000). A comparison of observational studies and randomized, controlled trials. NewEngland Journal of Medicine, 342(25), 1878-1886.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Britton, A., McPherson, K., McKee, M., Sanderson, C., Black, N., & Bain, C. (1998). Choosing between randomized and non-randomized studies: A systematic review. Health Technology Assessment, 2(13), 1-124.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Concato, J., Shah, N., & Horwitz, R. I. (2000). Randomized, controlled trials, observational studies, and the hierarchy of research designs. New England Journal of Medicine, 342(25), 1887-1892.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Department of Health and Human Services. (1979). The Belmont Report. Retrived from http://ohrp.osophs.dhhs.gov/humansubjects/guidance/belmont.htm

  • World Medical Association. (2000). The Declaration of Helsinki. 52nd WMA General Assembly, Edinburgh, Scotland. Retrived from http://www.wma.net

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Attention Disorders Clinic, 2102 East Main Street, Endicott, New York, 13760

    Vincent Monastra

Authors
  1. Theodore J. La Vaque
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. D. Corydon Hammond
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. David Trudeau
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Vincent Monastra
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. John Perry
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Paul Lehrer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Douglas Matheson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Richard Sherman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

La Vaque, T.J., Hammond, D.C., Trudeau, D. et al. Template for Developing Guidelines for the Evaluation of the Clinical Efficacy of Psychophysiological Interventions. Appl Psychophysiol Biofeedback 27, 273–281 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1021061318355

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1021061318355

Search

Navigation