Emotional Freedom Techniques

(SUDS) – i.e., a Likert scale for subjective measures of distress, calibrated 0 to 10 – then repeating an orienting affirmation while rubbing or tapping specific points on the body. Some practitioners incorporate eye movements or other tasks. The emotional intensity is then rescored and repeated until no changes are noted in the emotional intensity. ==Mechanism==

Proponents of EFT and other similar treatments believe that tapping/stimulating acupuncture points provide the basis for significant improvement in psychological problems. An article in the Skeptical Inquirer argued that there is no plausible mechanism to explain how the specifics of EFT could add to its effectiveness, and they have been described as unfalsifiable and therefore pseudoscientific. Evidence has not been found for the existence of meridians. == Research quality ==

EFT has no useful effect as a therapy beyond the placebo effect or any known-effective psychological techniques that may be used with the purported "energy" technique, but proponents of EFT have published material claiming otherwise. Their work, however, is flawed and hence unreliable: high-quality research has never confirmed that EFT is effective. A 2009 review found "methodological flaws" in research studies that had reported "small successes" for EFT and the related Tapas Acupressure Technique. The review concluded that positive results may be "attributable to well-known cognitive and behavioral techniques that are included with the energy manipulation. Psychologists and researchers should be wary of using such techniques, and make efforts to inform the public about the ill effects of therapies that advertise miraculous claims." A 2016 systematic review found that EFT was effective in reducing anxiety compared to controls, but also called for more research to establish the relative efficacy to that of established treatments. ==Reception==

A Delphi poll of an expert panel of psychologists rated EFT on a scale describing how discredited EFT has been in the field of psychology. On average, this panel found EFT had a score of 3.8 on a scale from 1.0 to 5.0, with 3.0 meaning "possibly discredited" and a 4.0 meaning "probably discredited." A book examining pseudoscientific practices in psychology characterized EFT as one of a number of "fringe psychotherapeutic practices," and a psychiatry handbook states EFT has "all the hallmarks of pseudoscience." EFT, along with its predecessor, Thought Field Therapy, has been dismissed with warnings to avoid their use by publications such as ''The Skeptic's Dictionary'' and Quackwatch. Proponents of EFT and other energy psychology therapies have been "particularly interested" in seeking "scientific credibility" despite the implausible proposed mechanisms for EFT. However, this work by Feinstein has been widely criticized. One review criticized Feinstein's methodology, noting he ignored several research papers that did not show positive effects of EFT, and that Feinstein did not disclose his conflict of interest as an owner of a website that sells energy psychology products such as books and seminars, contrary to the best practices of research publication. Another review criticized Feinstein's conclusion, which was based on research of weak quality and instead concluded that any positive effects of EFT are due to the more traditional psychological techniques rather than any putative "energy" manipulation. Feinstein published another review in 2012, concluding that energy psychology techniques "consistently demonstrated strong effect sizes and other positive statistical results that far exceed chance after relatively few treatment sessions." This review was also criticized, where again it was noted that Feinstein dismissed higher quality studies which showed no effects of EFT, in favor of methodologically weaker studies which did show a positive effect. Cassandra L. Bonessa, Rory Pfundb, and David F. Tolin publish, in the same journal, a critical analysis of 3 meta-analyses highlighted by this study. By using the AMSTAR2 analysis criteria, they come to the conclusion that these were poorly carried out and that their quality is “Critically low”. The three researchers call EFT pseudo-science and an “unsinkable rubber duck”. ==References==