The Poole et al. (1995) surveys of therapists: Misinterpretations by both sides of the recovered memories controversy

D. Stephen Lindsay, Debra A. Poole

Research output: Contribution to journalReview articlepeer-review

1 Scopus citations

Abstract

Olio (1996) critically reviewed an article by Poole, Lindsay, Memon, and Bull (1995) that reported surveys of clinicians' beliefs and practices regarding their clients' memories of childhood sexual abuse. Olio's article made several apt points that correctly identified limitations on the kinds of conclusions that can be drawn from the Poole et al. data, but it also made several erroneous claims. Some of these errors have been repeated in articles citing Olio by Pope (1996, 1997) and Brown (1998). In this commentary we respond to those of Olio's criticisms with which we disagree, next briefly comment on limitations of the Poole et al. data, and then turn to a more general discussion of ways in which the Poole et al. data have sometimes been misinterpreted by both sides of the controversy regarding recovered-memory experiences.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)383-399
Number of pages17
JournalJournal of Psychiatry and Law
Volume26
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - Apr 1998

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'The Poole et al. (1995) surveys of therapists: Misinterpretations by both sides of the recovered memories controversy'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this