Dr. Art,
I understood the part about them having advanced degrees. But I'm still not understanding how one treats a specific condition with 2 weeks of training on that condition. I have an Msc in Celtic studies (and am a 3 year PhD candidate)----but that isn't what makes me an "expert" on revival in celtic language speaking regions. My 6 years of study on that aspect of Celtic Studies is. After 2 weeks of training I still wouldn't have been able to tell the difference between revival experience in various regions......which leads me to wonder how someone could tell the difference between mental health conditions which mirror each other within a similar 2 week specialization training.
Also, I wonder what you think of this statment:
"Richard Barth thinks the emphasis on attachment is misplaced. 'The adoption field's near obsession with attachment issues as the cause of difficulties in parenting is leading the field astray, in some cases with tragic results,' he says. 'There is no scientific basis that I am aware of that points to attachment problems as a primary cause of parent and child problems or suggests that any of the attachment-based therapies are effective in reducing these problems.'
"Barth says that other proven interventions, such as multisystemic family therapy and Assertive Community Treatment, could be adapted to meet the needs of adoptive families."
http://www.ncsl.org/programs/cyf/adoption.htm
I had been under the impression that attachment issues had been well researched and that attachment professionals were well trained....now I'm starting to wonder (2 weeks just doesn't seem like good training to me.). As I think back on my reading, almost all of it has been anecdotal. I haven't read any peer reviewed studies. Where are they? Which journals should I be looking up?