Psychological Debriefing - Assignment Example

Psychological Debriefing What are at least two facts presented by each side of the critical issue? The case for considering Psychological Debriefing for Trauma victims harmful presents the facts that:I. Six out of eight reviews of the use of debriefing were conducted by the authors of the process; which weakens the value of the studies, as methodological strengths and weaknesses are not objectively assessed.II. Studies gathering support for CISM use CISD (which is particularly suspect) as a central component that is evaluated.

The case against considering Psychological Debriefing for Trauma victims harmful presents the facts that:I. CISD is only a part of a larger comprehensive process and cannot be considered a complete intervention. Thus, the academic focus on it can produce flawed results.II. Debriefing without preliminary work is harmful since it is not developed as a stand-alone intervention.2. What are at least two opinions presented by each side of the critical issue? The case for considering Psychological Debriefing for Trauma victims harmful presents the opinions that:I.

Psychological debriefing acts like first-aid, and is as inadequate in a crisis situation.II. Although the intentions behind debriefing are good, there is not enough evidence for the more comprehensive system of CISM.The case against considering Psychological Debriefing for Trauma victims harmful presents the opinion that:I. CSID alone is inadequate; and focusing only on it undermines the value of the entire procedure.II. Debriefing is never recommended as the first measure in a trauma situation; and should be introduced only after preliminary work that is essential to its success.3. What are some of the strengths associated with the Pro side of the issue?

What are some of the weaknesses? The discussion on the pro side provides strong empirical evidence that underlines the inadequate nature of the debriefing process; and provides valuable input about areas of the process that need to be defined and studied in detail. While it does not negate the use of debriefing completely; it sheds light on the loopholes and weaknesses associated with the present day use of the methods.A significant weakness of the discussion is that it does not offer adequate and effective measures that can help bridge the gap between theory and practice and does not offer details about alternative techniques.4. What are some of the strengths associated with the Con side of the issue?

What are some of the weaknesses? The discussion on the Con side discusses the process of using CISM and CISD and provides explanations for existing confusion about the terms. It also offers an explanation of the entire process of Psychological debriefing which and the circumstances in which it may be used effectively.A weakness of this perspective is that it does not compare with other interventions effectively and thus cannot provide conclusive evidence for the use of debriefing in its present form.5. How credible were the authors of each argument?

Explain your answer. I think both authors were credible; and provided valuable inputs to the debate. On the whole, there was agreement that a short immediate use of a debriefing intervention is both inadequate and incompetent. While the author presenting the argument pro the statement that Psychological Debriefing for Trauma victims is harmful emphasized the transient nature of the intervention in its present shape; the author against the statement provided inputs on the methods that would allow for the effective use of debriefing so that it would be helpful and not harmful.6. Based on the statements presented in this critical issue, which author do you agree with? Why? Based on the information provided, I agree that using debriefing as an immediate and short term intervention may not be effective.

Although I don’t believe that psychological debriefing is all bad; I do agree with the argument pro the statement ‘Psychological Debriefing for Trauma victims is harmful’ that is there is a chance of harm; it is wiser to look at other intervention strategies that are long term. Although there is evidence to support its use, I believe that there needs to be more detailed development of a comprehensive program like CISM so that strategies used are helpful without carrying the chance of harm. 7. Which side of this critical issue does contemporary research support?

Please provide specific examples in your response.There is research evidence for both sides of the argument; but I believe that the evidence that shows the improper and ill-timed use of debriefing methods can be more harmful if not ineffective (Mayou, Ehlers & Hobbs, 2000; van Emmerik et al, 2002). On the basis of these studies, it may be said that the indiscriminate use of psychological debriefing methods have been found to be harmful rather than useful in the long run. ReferencesDevilly G.J. & Cotton, P. (2003). Psychological debriefing and the workplace: Defining a concept, controversies and guidelines for intervention.

Australian psychologist, 38(2), 144 – 150.Mayou, R.A., Ehlers, A. & Hobbs, M. (2000). Psychological debriefing for road traffic accident victims: Three year follow-up of a randomized control trial. British journal of psychiatry, 176, 589-593.Mitchell, T.J. (2004). A response to the devilly and cotton article, “Psychological debriefing and the workplace…”. Australian psychologist, 39(1), 24-28.van Emmerik, A.A.P, Kamphuis, J.H., Hulsbosch, A.M. & Emmelkamp, P.M.G. (2002). Single session debriefing after psychological trauma: A meta-analysis.

The Lancet, 360, 766-771.