User talk:Jean Mercer/archive 1

Welcome! Hello, Jean Mercer/archive 1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Aplomado ^talk 21:29, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Attachment Therapy

The article you created appears to have some problems conforming with Wikipedia policies WP:NPOV and WP:OR. See this article's talk page for more information on what I mean and try to improve the article so it doesn't get targeted for deletion. Aplomado ^talk 22:40, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I see someone has turned it into a redirect page. To repost my comment from the talk page, the problem with what you're doing is that you're saying Source A says this (which is acceptable), Source B says this (which is acceptable), so therefore I come to Conclusion C (not acceptable). If you have a source that can back up your conclusion in the same way you backed up your premises, then this would be acceptable. You can't cite yourself, I'm afraid, unless you have a published work to that effect. The criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth.

Also, as DPeterson noted, "attachment therapy" has already been addressed at "Attachment disorder." Is there a reason why we need a seperate article? Aplomado ^talk 00:32, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Medicine

Responding to your question on my talk page, I believe Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine would be a good place to ask for some assistance with "Attachment Therapy." Aplomado ^talk 15:10, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I've requested help from that group.Jean Mercer 15:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Attachment therapy etc

Sadly, there are no Wikipedia psychiatrists (appart from one who's got enough trouble on his hands with alcoholism), and I'm not personally aware of any loose psychologists. I have seen the AFD and surrounding discussion, and I really doubt I can personally be of much use there. The relevant articles look like a job for psychologists, and I get the impression Wikipedia:WikiProject Psychology may be your answer. Good luck. JFW | T@lk 22:10, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Second Warning

Self-serving references cannot be included are are not a NPOV. Citing your own book is not NPOV and represents a conflict of interest as well as a financial conflict since you and your group (Advocates for Children in Therapy) get support form those publications. You have already been warned once about this.RalphLender 23:33, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism Warning

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits, such as those you made to Advocates For Children in Therapy , are considered vandalism. If you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the hard work of others. Thanks.

EBT and Bowlby

In response to your comment on my talk page: I appreicate your taking the time to comment. I am quite familiar with EBT and the various criteria. The citation you mention is one of several and the criteria is one of severa. You might want to become familiar with the full range of approaches. Good luck. SamDavidson 19:48, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

AT

Hi. Am I right in thinking you are one of the group called ACT? I am a little puzzled by the inclusion of some therapies on your site as AT 'by another name'. In particular, Theraplay and Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy. I think it is important for the AT site to clearly set out what is and what isn't AT 'by another name' for the sake of parents looking for information. You seem to have given up editing the site a while ago, but perhaps you could point me in the direction of relevent information on this. Fainites 16:23, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello-- are you referring to the ACT web site or to material on this site? If you mean this site, I've discussed the situation in a "media watch" article soon to be published in Scientific Review of Mental Health Practice. If you mean the ACT site, you might want to send your comments directly to the site. If you would like more information on the point you raise, you may want to look at an article co-authored by Monica Pignotti and myself that will appear in May {sorry, that will be July)in the journal Research on Social Work. This article examines the nature of holding therapy and DDP and refutes the earlier claims of Craven & Lee that these interventions have a sound evidentiary basis.

If you are doing some reading about interventions of this type, don't forget to investigate their adjuvant use of restrictive milieu therapies. This aspect of the treatment may actually be more significant than specific intervention techniques that go by various names.

Please keep in mind, also, that the age of the child is a very important issue, and that treatments should be developmentally appropriate. "Age regression" is not an effective or acceptable approach. Parents should be sure to avoid practitioners who claim that Reactive Attachment Disorder is common, or who refer to Attachment Disorder as a separate entity, or who claim that children who are not as affectionate as parents would like will necessarily grow up to be serial killers.

Good luck in your search for information.

Sorry, I forgot to add my name-- Jean MercerJean Mercer 15:35, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply.Fainites 16:23, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Formal Mediation

Jean, I will be filing for formal mediation concerning these attachment therapy articles. Please see Talk:Attachment_Therapy#Formal_Mediation and indicate whether or not you'd like to participate. Also list any issues that you find salient. I think it would be important for you to participate because you are an expert. shotwell 00:27, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I had just been looking at the list, which seems to me very appropriate. I would like to participate but don't have additions to the list at this point-- I do think some "unpacking" of the questions touching on evidence-based practice may be necessary, as this is an issue that seems to be subject to attempts at proof by assertion. As I've said before, I consider this and similar articles to be of high sensitivity because of use by the general public. Just to let you know, I'll be out of contact June 1-12, but will be paying attention before and after that period. Thanks for your involvement in this. Jean Mercer 14:42, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello Jean. I think you are right. I also think we need to distinguish between valid and unvalidated treatments. Somewhere though, we do need to make sure that all relevant views are heard regardless of how wierd. I'll have to admit, I'm still floundering with some of the concepts. I may need your help later on. Maypole 21:02, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it gets easier if you use a levels of evidence approach rather than chocolate or vanilla absolutes. But there are also a lot of details that ned to be looked at in any research report, including common statistical errors (choice of test)and above all the confounding of variables in the design. At this point, I don't think there is any classification system that pays attention to these things-- certainly the one used by Craven & Lee does not. I have an article submitted to a journal that goes through a long list of issues that need consideration. I don't think we're nearly ready to go to a checklist,as people have been wanting to do. Even if we could, mental health research is always going to provide probabilistic conclusions, which is why somw writers on this subject demand at least two, independently-done, reports supporting an intervention. Incidentally, even using Craven & Lee's method should not yield a satisfactory classification for DDP, because there is no manual (necessary for this method), and the connection with accepted theory is extremely weak. Anyway, there's a whole lot more to this question than just searching for the tag that says EBP-- that's why I said the question needed to be unpacked.72.73.193.82 21:32, 20 May 2007 (UTC) rats-- thought I signed in. Jean mercer

Formal Mediation

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Attachment Therapy, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible. shotwell 19:19, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party has been accepted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Attachment Therapy. For the Mediation Committee, ^demon[omg plz] This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to open new mediation cases. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

This message delivered: 04:17, 31 May 2007 (UTC).

Arbitration

I have filed an arbitration request concerning Attachment Therapy and listed you as an involved party. You can provide a statement at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Attachment_Therapy. shotwell 11:36, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Attachment Therapy

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Attachment Therapy. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Attachment Therapy/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Attachment Therapy/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Picaroon (Talk) 17:53, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion

I'm not very familiar with arbitration, but if you want your statement to carry any significant weight, you might consider providing a few diff's to back up your claims.

I'm not suggesting that you need 1000 diffs to prove your statements, but conversely, it's unlikely that the arbitrators will be inclined to do the digging for you.

Peace.Lsi john 17:48, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. I wasn't quite finished. J.Jean Mercer 18:10, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

for diff's you type: [http://the.URL.com description here] and you get description here which hides the lengthy http url. Peace.Lsi john 19:43, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Hot dog, it works! Thank you, Lsi john.Jean Mercer 23:53, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

No worries. It actually helps everyone all the way around. The easier it is to read for the arbcom committee, the less time they have to spend on it. And the better they understand what you're trying to say without wanting to skip it. ;) Peace.Lsi john 23:55, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not that familiar with arbcom. However, from what I gather, it's about making your case (in a limited way).. but its more about providing 'proof' to help the committee reach a decision. In the context of court, there are the opening statements (which was what happened first), and now there is evidence. So, I suspect its important to be as concise as possible, (tossing out sentence structure and grammar when possible) and making clear statements about the misconduct with 'evidence' diffs to back up the statements. Peace.Lsi john 23:59, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Re Reactive

Interesting point. Why call it 'reactive' and where does it fit with attachment disorder. Some authors use the terms interchangeably as if there is no attachment disorder outside RAD. Fainites ^barley 18:06, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Attachment Therapy closed

This arbitration case has been closed, and the final decision may found at the above link. DPeterson is banned for one year. All parties are reminded of the need for care when editing in an area with a potential conflict of interest. For the Arbitration Committee, Picaroon (t) 20:01, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

COPY Dear Fanities and Jim,

Just to say I am very pleased with my pages on;-

°Professor Sir Michael Rutter °Maternal deprivation °Michael Rutter Centre for Children and Adolescents

I should just like to thank you for your help and to say, despite the considerable improvement, the new page on attachment still needs sorting. Nevertheless many thanks.

kipKingsleyMiller 15:02, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

You're so right! Sorry, i've been doing other work.Jean Mercer 12:53, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

IRS required forms?

I notice that in your description you make no mention of your being a leader of Advocates for Children in Therapy and I was wondering why not since it is such a major component of your professional career (promotes your books and articles and positions and views and such)?

Oh, also, on another subject, I'd asked you for a copy of your group's IRS form 990 and have not yet received a copy. Many organizations actually post theirs on their website. 69.204.15.239 I'd not heard back from you so I thought I'd ask here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AWeidman (talk • contribs) 23:58, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, sorry about forgetting to sign in before editing. I notice that your group, [Advocates for Children in Therapy] does not post it's 990 on it's website like many other groups do. I've still not heard an answer to my request for your group's 990, as a leader of the group I'd think you'd have that at your fingertips. If you can mail or e=mail me a copy...or post it, that would be great. thanks. Dr. Becker-Weidman ^Talk 16:15, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

In response to your comment, I figured you must have a copy of that form since there are only three leaders of the group. I've not heard back from Linda Rosa yet. It would seem to be good form to list the document on your website as many other organizations do...what is the reason you don't? Just curious. You might also want to consider including that information in the article on this site about your group, Advocates for Children in Therapy; it would be useful information and is public information, available from the IRS and online, I think, although I've not checked. thanks. Dr. Becker-Weidman ^Talk 17:36, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Dear Jean, just to repeat what I'd put on my talk page for you: As an FYI, the IRS requires that as a non-profit 501(c)(3) you (your group, Advocates for Children in Therapy provide copies of your tax returns to those who request it. But, again, I hear your refusal to do so and won't ask any further. Dr. Becker-Weidman ^Talk 00:11, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

AWeidman

I have blocked AWeidman's account. A post will be made shortly on the administrator's noticeboard.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 00:55, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Tronick and Stern

You added these 'may' be sources for Hughes work. He actually cites both of them in his 2004 description of DDP. Or isn't this what you meant? Fainites ^barley 00:13, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

What I mean is, you can cite work in a retro-fitted way, looking for background that supports what you're doing-- or you can read the material and say, "hey, this gives me an idea about how things should work." I don't know what happened here. That's why I said "may", because i don't see these citations in the earlier Hughes material, even though they pre-date it. And, Hughes never provides a rationale for the connection between Tronick's work and DDP.Jean Mercer (talk) 15:27, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

The whole early development of DDP is very murky I think. Becker-Weidman cites Hughes 1997 book in his DDP studies - a book which includes holding and age regression. According to the Kansas university paper Becker-Weidman used to cite studies by Myeroff and Randolph on his website in 2004 to support his claim that DDP was 'evidence-based' - ie studies on plain holding therapy. In the circumstances its very difficult to know what early DDP was. If you looked just at the BW stuff you might conclude it was holding therapy by another name. Maybe it was back in 2000/01. The first clear exposition of what its meant to be is those 2003/2004 papers. I don't think Tronick and Stern appear in the 1997 book - I'll check. Fainites ^barley 07:54, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

No, they don't, but that doesn't mean they weren't an influence. Some authors are careless about citing background.Jean Mercer (talk) 14:09, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Disorganised attachment

I think Attachment in children should contain some mention of Crittendens view on disorganised attachment. Crittenden is pretty notable. What do you think? Fainites ^barley 19:18, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

RADreview

Hi. Eulibides has started with Epidemiology. [1] The Boris bit was from the previous article which used to cite Boris for 10% and Cicchetti for 80%. I removed Cicchetti because he wasn't writing about RAD at all but left in the Boris! Damn. Is there in fact an estimate of any percent anywhere? (The other one was the 52% from the National Adoption bods which I never could find on their website so I removed that too).Fainites ^barley 15:44, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm wondering if there's a more current DSM sourcebook that might help on this. I'll have a look.Jean Mercer (talk) 19:30, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

DDP

Regarding the vexed question of what DDP was in the early days, here is an Arif response from 2003 to a query. This only applies to B-W's 2004 study but they clearly thought it was holding therapy. This fits with the Kansas paper that looked at B-W's website in 2004 and also thought it was holding. [2] Fainites ^barley 17:57, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

It walked like a duck and it quacked like a duck. Speaking of quacks.Jean Mercer (talk) 20:34, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Whats the name of the 2007 Zeanah paper and I'll do a Diberri PMID thing on it. Fainites ^barley 18:35, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I've got it now - it was that book. Fainites ^barley 19:20, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Right-- I added it to the references, but I didn't really understand how you're doing it now.Jean Mercer (talk)

Well I've rather lost track myself. I'm confidently expecting the FAC reviewing to require an entirely new scheme. Fainites ^barley 23:58, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh I don't know. Reformulating 100 refs 3 times has been huge amounts of jolly fun. Fainites ^barley 13:32, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Jean there's a mysterious ref that just says 'Boris and Zeanah 2005' in relation to their new taxonomy under classification. I can't find any more than this. Was there a paper or book chapter? (Its only one of several refs that have goneastray under the new system!) is it this one that deals with the new taxonomy?

Boris, N. & Zeanah, C.H. (2005). Reactive attachment disorder. In Kaplan & Sadock (Eds.), Comprehensive textbook of psychiatry (pp. 3248-3254), Philadelphia, Williams and Wilkins.

Fainites ^barley 23:09, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Unfortunately my jokey prediction about the refs came true. Mind you, compared to work, its positively relaxing. Fainites ^barley 19:16, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Reformulated refs Take 4. Fainites ^barley 21:55, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid i've mangled your prose in 'Mechanisms'. Personally I like your prose but the reviewers seem to prefer a more choppy style. I hope I've preserved the sense. Fainites ^barley 23:34, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Could you check out the bottom of Eubulides section please. I think 'very uncommon' comes from the DSM but my copy's gone AWOL. Fainites ^barley 19:53, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Thats funny - because the Taskforce say that the DSM say its very uncommon. Heres the passage : "According to the DSM, RAD is presumed to be a “very uncommon” disorder (APA, 1994), although it is a disorder currently drawing considerable attention and interest." Bother.Fainites ^barley 22:44, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, you mean your DSM is AWOL? Now I'm really confused. I think the issue now should be what IV-TR says, but I need a library to find that.Jean Mercer (talk) 01:20, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Bother again. I'll see if I can find a library later today. Fainites ^barley 07:12, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

By the way - I added a bit more to 'mechanism' from Prior and Glaser. I'm not sure to what extent its a repeat of your bit. Should we amalgamate the two? Fainites ^barley 20:33, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Is this any use do you think? [3].Fainites ^barley 20:56, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Volmar and Richters are actually citing Zeanah and Emde (In press) but I can't find the published article. Fainites ^barley 21:32, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

You mean Richters & Volkmar in 1994? I can't find anything co-authored by Zeanah and Emde, all the way back to 1980.Jean Mercer (talk) 02:08, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Many a slip between 'in press' and publication. Fainites ^barley 22:04, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Mechanism (query above)

Actually, i'd argue that fearfulness must begin to emerge before attachment behavior occurs, and that's what my first sentence implied. If you're going to put in the Prior and Glaser argument, I would think you should introduce it by saying "alternatively" or something like that. But fearfulness of loud noises, sudden movements, etc., begins about a month before the classic proximity-seeking, and it's accompanied by "wariness", a cool reception to strangers, with rapid warm-up if they're friendly. I'd argue that the individual's motivation for increasing attachment is the caregiver's ability to buffer fear-inducing situations (of course that's a lot different from the evolutionary benefits of attachment). For children with disorganized attachments, the problem is the awful paradox of a parent who is frightening, but the only source of escape from fear.Jean Mercer (talk) 02:17, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I've now shifted the mechanism section to attachment theory, (or was it attachment in children), on advice from the FAC review. I know you thought it was all jolly speculative anyway and it probably fits better with the material about how attachments work. Fainites ^barley 14:43, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

No. 5

User talk:SandyGeorgia#Reactive attachment disorder. Roll that rock. Fainites ^barley 22:49, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

What do you think of this? [4] Does it deserve a place in Mechanism? Fainites ^barley 22:08, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

No significant differences were found-- so I would say there's no evidence that it's part of the mechanism. There was another article recently about cortisol responses-- it got talked up a lot-- but no significant differences there either. Unless you want to have further speculation on possible mechanisms, I'd omit these.Jean Mercer (talk) 00:09, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

OK. I took it out. I got all excited at first as I misread it as applying to the DAD's rather than all foster children. Fainites ^barley 22:50, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

It's possible to identify all the foster children, not so easy to identify specific diagnoses, so most of the work will be about a larger population.Jean Mercer (talk) 13:54, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Heres another Minnis one. [5] Does this have the same problem with assessment as you thought the other on did? Fainites ^barley 23:05, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, all the genetics stuff is very complicated, but it's still the same old questionnaire. Just because you do a factor analysis doesn't mean it's clearly the named disorder. Jean Mercer (talk) 01:11, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

And another Minnis job on how the whole thing is misconceived and should be renamed.[6] Fainites ^barley 23:13, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd agree, but unless there is agreement on the core features, I don't see how just changing the name will help. Jean Mercer (talk) 01:14, 8 February 2008 (UTC) I came across the website for these people the other day. The child isn't required to do anything other than be in the same room while the parent tells 'narratives'. If it won't co-operate that far then they say its not the therapy for you.[7] Fainites ^barley 23:18, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

This Joanne May is a sidekick of Todd Nichols, the public policy-degree guy who's been a higher-up in ATTACh and was on the APSAC task force.Jean Mercer (talk) 01:09, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Fantastic! Reactive attachment disorder in mice! [8][9] Must put this one in. Fainites ^barley 23:21, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Assessed with the Strange Male Mouse Situation-- those not caught by the cat, must have been attached. Actually there was an article that alluded to this in the APA "Monitor on Psychology" the other day. It quoted a study on stress hormones in foster children-- unfortunately neglected to say that there was no significant difference between groups.Jean Mercer (talk) 01:09, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Dyadic developmental psychotherapy

Check out recent changes. Fainites ^barley 22:59, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Charles H. Zeanah

At the suggestion of Fvancellos I created a quick article on CH. Its stuff from the Tulane University description + some stuff from RAD and some stuff on the New Orleans Interention. Could you add stuff from other areas he's notable in like PTSD, effects of violence etc. Fainites ^barley 18:57, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh good. I wasn't entirely sure that attachment was the main emphasis of all his work as opposed to a little sideline he fiddles with if you see what I mean. Fainites ^barley 19:35, 2 March 2008 (UTC)