Talk:Schema therapy

Copy-edit

I have just done a major copy-edit, partly to fix awkwardness, but mainly to remove claims of effectiveness that are not substantiated. You have some leeway in describing Young's ideas, but if you want to include claims about the therapy accomplishing something, they need to be substantiated by references to reputable published articles in medical or psychological journals, or to reputable books by third parties. Let me also point out that the section above is useless, because Wikipedia talk pages are not visible to search engines. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 18:02, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I understand. This is my first ever submitted article. I'm just learning my way around this site. Thanks for the edit. --Ladybrainbypass (talk) 05:41, 24 January 2010 (UTC)--Ladybrainbypass (talk) 05:42, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

This message especially for Ladybrainbypass: I like your article on Schema Therapy and I share your surprise that there wasn't an article on it before. I'm a therapist and ST is near and dear to my heart. I'm working on a pretty major re-working o the ST article based on some of the writing from George Lockwood (one of the early collaborators on Schema Therapy). I feel bad doing such a major re-working, but hopefully you'll find it a Good Thing. Please let me know if you feel otherwise! Curt — Preceding unsigned comment added by Curt k (talk • contribs) 06:12, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm underway working on a major re-working of the Schema Therapy article, for now it's at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Curt_k/Schema_Therapy I'm thinking once it's in pretty good shape top move it over to the Schema Therapy article. Any objections? Any feedback/suggestions on the draft? Again, I'm especially thinking of Ladybrainbypass who created the ST article and did so much work on it. Curt k (talk) 18:26, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Hallo Curt k, I find the section Outcome Studies on Schema Therapy on you page better organized and more in encyclopedic style than the one you posted here. The only remark on the article in your sandbox is the lack of inline references. Good work though!--Dia^ (talk) 12:09, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I did a very brief online search and seems that a good part of the article in your sandbox is copied from here: http://www.schematherapymidwest.com/schematherapy/treatment/index.html . That's not allowed in Wikipedia. --Dia^ (talk) 12:14, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Dia^ for taking a look at the draft and your feedback. Yes, I'm getting most of the content from that site, but with its author's permission (George Lockwood). I'm trying to avoid re-inventing a wheel *and* avoiding plagerism. Is *that* okay? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Curt k (talk • contribs) 00:12, 18 August 2011 (UTC) Curt k (talk) 15:05, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Hey Dia^, thanks again for the feedback. This looks like it might work out -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Contact_us/Permit I think George would be fine following this procedure for his content (licensing it appropriately and e-mailing Wikipedia that it's fine with him to use it in the ST article. I'm assuming that all works out, let me know if you see otherwise! Thanks again, Curt Curt k (talk) 15:24, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Until then the text you inserted should be removed. When the permit has reached Wikipedia and has been approved, you can reinsert the text. --Dia^ (talk) 16:16, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

George Lockwood sent an e-mail to Wikipedia authorizing his content on the article in my sandbox. This from the talk page there (from Oct 5 2011): An email containing details of the permission for this text has been sent in accordance with WP:OTRS. Note to uploaders: Please copy the URL of this image or article in the email to assist OTRS volunteers to find it. If an email cannot be found in the OTRS system, the content may be deleted for lack of valid licensing information. Note to OTRS volunteers: If the email contains sufficient confirmation of the validity of the license, please replace this template with {{OTRS permission}}. Otherwise, remove the copyrighted content, deleting the page if necessary.

I'm pretty much done with the article in my sandbox. I'm going to move it over to the main Schema Therapy article unless anyone objects. Thanks, Curt Curt k (talk) 02:48, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Comment on the new article

I understand that a new article is being developed at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Schema Therapy. I would not like to see the present article contents replaced unless the new version is greatly improved. It's way too long, in my opinion (328,000 bytes). The present article, though it could be improved, is short enough to grasp the general idea in a few minutes (29,100 bytes). Generally speaking any Wikipedia article over 100K bytes is too long, in my opinion. EdJohnston (talk) 04:59, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Hey Ed, Thanks for the feedback. I debated splitting the publications section off into a separate article. They acount for the vast majority of the length of the new article. I'll give you the tie braking vote on that and give it a shot tonight and see how it looks. Any further feedback then much appreciated! Curt k (talk) 18:15, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I split it into two articles. My main new article is way shorter, I don't know about bytes, but it's about 39000 characters now. It has a place to link to the Publications List, which is in an Article for Creation state now.

My new main article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Schema_Therapy

My new publications list article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Schema_Therapy_Publications_List

Any thoughts? Thanks, Curt Curt k (talk) 23:54, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Bias

"Schema Therapy teaches self-discovery, self-discipline, and stops patients from using abnormal or harmful coping styles impulsively." I don't know all of the research on the topic, but seeing as this line doesn't have a citation attached it reads as incredibly biased, especially as the last line in the article. I'm sure I'm not the only person who would read it and feel skeptical, possibly leading to skepticism about the whole article and it's subject matter. 24.222.251.111 (talk) 19:51, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I didn't write the line you quote, but if I had to guess I think it's probably more a problem of wording versus bias, that maybe the writer was trying to say that those are the goals of Schema Therapy. But yeah, the sentence needs work.

I'm working on a major re-write of the Schema Therapy article, it's in Articles for Creation now at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Schema_Therapy I'd appreciate feedback. I'd like to eventually move it or most of it over to the live Schema Therapy article.

Take care, Curt Curt k (talk) 21:39, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I went ahead and edited that sentence to make it clear that those are *goals* of Schema Therapy. Curt k (talk) 19:02, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Merging in new material

I'm going to start merging in new material from my sandbox article. I'll try to preserve the strengths and intents of the current article and add in perspectives from professionals in the field and add in more citations and resources. Feel free to let me know what you think. Curt k (talk) 19:06, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Brought in a new section on some outcome studies. Curt k (talk) 19:21, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I updated the introduction to clarify the sources that ST draws on (for example, not TA, although there is notable overlap between ST and TA, TA was not a source for ST), and that ST was developed in response mostly to limitations in traditional CBT for Axis II disorders, not limitations to DBT (Jeffrey Young worked closely with Aaron Beck on CBT and ST and DBT were developed at about the same time). Also provided a quick overview of the main theoretical concepts of ST and provided citations. I need to add a source to Jay Lebow's relevant book, but I'm struggling with the citation interface.... Curt k (talk) 02:40, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Added some more external links. And I see there's a place to add comments on edits right when you're doing the edits. I'll comment there instead from now on! Curt k (talk) 03:04, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Am I writing "original research?"

Anyone want to reality check the second paragraph of the technqiue section, where I talk about ST related to history in psychoanalysis? I like the paragraph (thank you very much), but I worry that it could fall under the Wikipedia no-no of original research. Any thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Curt k (talk • contribs) 19:24, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I'm going to answer my own question and say, no, my paragraph is not original research because it's not a new idea that Schema Therapy draws on psychoanalysis, particularly object relations, as Schema Therapy is explicitly an integrative psychotherapy model. Curt k (talk) 18:05, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Ogden

In response to Curt k's prior comment above: I am restoring the WP:OR tag because I searched for reputable sources on schema therapy that cite Thomas Ogden on internal subjects and schema therapy and I could not find any sources. I don't consider it completely implausible that one of the books on schema therapy cites Thomas Ogden. (If I thought it was implausible I would have deleted the sentence entirely, not tagged it WP:OR.) No matter how many times you've discussed this topic over beers at the pub with clinical colleagues, it is WP:OR if it is not published in a reliable source. Biogeographist (talk) 11:43, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

And in response to Curt k's recent edit summary (revision 712063739) that states "it would be original [research] and wrong to claim to Fairbairn was influenced by ST": No, it would not be original research to claim that Ronald Fairbairn was influenced by schema therapy, it would just be wrong—obviously impossible. On the other hand, claiming that Thomas Ogden's work on internal subjects is related to schema therapy is plausible but as far as I can see unsupported by reputable sources, hence WP:OR. Biogeographist (talk) 13:25, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Schema Domains?

Dear editor gods, could you add Schema Domains? Thanks. http://www.schematherapy.com/id73.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.84.48.125 (talk) 11:46, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I've been holding off on including schema domains because they are having mixed results in research (that is, whether or not the schemas do have these qualities shared, or maybe other qualities are shared). I don't think it's a horrible idea to include the domains in the Wikipedia article, I've just been reluctant to do it so far. Curt k (talk) 04:30, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Curious why schemas are called "early" maladaptive

This is a very interesting article. I'm wondering why there seems to be an assumption incorporated into the language that maladaptive schemas are "early", seeming to imply learned from childhood. I don't have a scholarly education in psychology but this sounds like a bias of Freudian heritage. Is there evidence that we develop maladaptive schemas only in childhood? Couldn't they be developed later? If evidence for "earlyness" doesn't exist, wouldn't it be more appropriate to simply call them maladaptive schemas, or persistent maladaptive schemas?67.194.177.142 (talk) 17:31, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Schema mode "Abandoned Child"

I am a bit confused by the term "Abandoned Child". Is this the same as "Vulnerable Child" as described in Young's Practitioner's Guide? MarcusK24 (talk) 12:10, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Technique in Schema Therapy - Imagery section

This part includes a citation from a book, where the author states that "the right hemisphere of the brain is the dominant hemisphere during early childhood", "most early maladaptive schemas are believed to be experienced and stored within the patient’s right hemisphere" and "The right hemisphere has the strongest links with the limbic part of the brain". As a neuroscience grad student I'm highly doubtful of any of these claims. I didn't have the time to check them though, but so far anything using words such as "dominant hemisphere" is usually closer to brain myths than actual facts. If they are in fact not supported by any scientific articles, what would be the proper course of action?

Capitalization of schema names

I am making several global changes to this article, undoing some of the work of a previous editor, and I will justify these changes here.

1. It is conventional to capitalize schema names and schema mode names in the standard guide to Schema Therapy: Young, Klosko & Weishaar (2003) (see the article for full citation information). Previous editors of this article followed this convention. However, recently an editor changed (most, but not all) the schema mode names in this article to italicized lower case, and changed (most, but not all) schema names to unitalicized lower case. I can understand why someone might have been confused about why these words were capitalized if they did not understand that schemas and schema modes are capitalized by convention in Schema Therapy. So I am adding a footnote after the first occurrence of a schema name and schema mode name in the article, explaining that these names are capitalized by convention, and italicized for clarity. And I am changing all occurrences of these names to reflect this. Please correct any that I may have missed.
2. Colons should not have a space before them, so I deleted the spaces preceding colons: see WP:MOS#Colons.
3. According to WP:MOS#Dashes: "Use either unspaced em dashes or spaced en dashes consistently in an article." In a previous edit of this article, I used unspaced em dashes, but another editor changed them to spaced em dashes, which is not a correct option as you can see in the quote just cited (the options are unspaced em or spaced en dashes, not spaced em dashes). So I am reverting them all to unspaced em dashes.

Biogeographist (talk) 06:19, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 17:49, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Backwards copy

I restored the introductory paragraph to the techniques section (removed by Diannaa), which was a backwards copy from Wikipedia to the external site, not a WP:COPYVIO. I know that the external site must have copied from Wikipedia, because the text on the external site includes my edits to this paragraph. Earlier versions of this paragraph used the phrase "therapist–patient relationship"; I changed that phrase to "therapeutic relationship" to match the name of the Wikipedia article, Therapeutic relationship, and to avoid a piped link. The paragraph on the external site matches exactly the version of the paragraph that contains my edits (except they changed the American spelling of "behavior" used in this article to the Australian spelling "behaviour"), therefore the paragraph must postdate my edits, therefore the paragraph must have been copied from Wikipedia to the external site, and not vice versa. Biogeographist (talk)

Case study

There is actually a case study on an unnamed man with ASPD and how he was treated with schema therapy. It outlines the way that the therapist earned his trust as well as the exact way that they treated the subject. There are statistics and graphs included as well. I found it very helpful in all my research. The case study is 'Treating the Untreatable: A Single Case Study of a Psychopathic Impatient Treated with Schema Therapy // EVIDENCE-BASED CASE STUDY' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:142:8200:3D40:B19F:BDBA:77F:6286 (talk) 23:32, 9 December 2019 (UTC)