|
| Clinical Behavior Analysis |
| Monday, May 30, 2005 |
| 3:30 PM–4:20 PM |
| Williford A (3rd floor) |
| Area: CBM |
| Chair: Stephen E. Wong (Florida International University) |
| |
| Some Empirical Evidence and Conceptual Analysis for Dosed vs Prolonged Exposure Treatment of Fear and Traumatic Stress |
| Domain: Applied Research |
| C. RICHARD SPATES (Western Michigan University) |
| |
| Abstract: This paper presents selected empirical evidence that suggest dosed exposure is superior to prolonged exposure along several dimensions in the treatment of fear and traumatic stress reactions. Recent literature also suggests there are major problems with the use of prolonged exposure in clinical practice. Dosed exposure occurs when the client confronts the conditioned aversive stimulus in brief intervals followed immediately by a brief intertrial interval free of CS. Prolonged exposure occurs when the CS confrontation is continuous without an intertrial interval free of confrontation. Both prolonged exposure and dosed exposure have shown efficacy as treatments for anxiety disorders. Recent empirical evidence suggests that dosed exposure is significantly more efficient in producing outcomes comparable to prolonged exposure, and there is greater uniformity of positive outcomes across dependent measures. This paper highlights the conceptual foundation for these differential observations, while drawing on data from clinical and basic research. It will be recommended that greater research attention be devoted to comparative efficacy and randomized clinical trials of these two procedures in the treatment of fear and traumatic stress. The outcome should be helpful to behavior therapists who wish to apply a demonstrably effective intervention without some of the drawbacks of prolonged exposure. |
| |
| Biomedicalization of Social Problems, New Conquests of the Pharmaceutical Industry, and Implication for Behavior Analysis |
| Domain: Service Delivery |
| STEPHEN E. WONG (Florida International University) |
| |
| Abstract: This paper examines the growing trend of characterizing and viewing putative physical diseases or biological defects as the cause of problems in human conduct and performance. This trend is manifested in the increasing number of DSM diagnoses, frequent television and other mass media advertisements for psychotropic drugs, rising drug sales to alleviate these concerns, and the expanding influence of biomedical concepts on professionals and lay persons when dealing with these difficulties. This paper briefly reviews some of the fallacies and pseudo-science supporting this movement, as well as the professional and industrial special interest groups that benefit from it. To illustrate these trends, three social problems -- schizophrenia, attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, and depression – will be discussed showing how their reconstruction within a biomedical framework limits the future applications of behavior analysis. |
| |
|
| |