Are 25% of Clinicians Using Potentially Risky Therapeutic Practices? A Review of the Logic and Methodology of the Poole, Lindsay et al. Study

Abstract

Conclusions from the Poole, Lindsay et al. study are often cited to document claims regarding the frequency and potential risks of using so-called suggestive memory recovery techniques or memory recovery therapies. This study has also been used to document the alleged number of persuaded clients who have developed false memories of childhood abuse. The basis for these claims seems questionable when the Poole, Lindsay et al. study is examined carefully. Lack of operational definitions, flawed survey construction, lack of face validity, misclassification of techniques, and fallacious inferences about causality, such as mistaking correlation for causation, make it impossible to use these data to draw scientific conclusions about the nature and outcomes of clinicians' practices.