The T.R.U.
Research Study was a free-standing study, i.e. a community based study with no
“host” venue or agency. Unlike the T.R.U. Pilot Project subjects were randomly
selected from the Greater Providence community at large rather than from one
particular agency or organization.
Doing a much larger study- four times the size of the Pilot- at
R.I.S.E., the host agency of the Pilot, was not an option due to the degree of
disruption that such a study would cause to such a small organization.
Moreover, R.I.S.E. is an organization of children and the Research Study would
be a study with adults.
An advertising budget was provided as part of the R.I.F. Grant to allow
for community solicitation of subjects. As it turned out approximately
two-thirds of the Research Study participants came from newspaper announcements
and one-third from helping profession referrals.
Participants were screened to meet study objectives. The first of these
was to insure that all participants were, in fact, trauma survivors. Those who
had histories of physical abuse, sexual abuse, rape, industrial/car accidents,
family deaths, familial breakup, marital breakup, miscarriages, abortions,
birth trauma, war trauma, assaults, family suicide/murder or other similar
“traumas” were selected. All subjects survived at least three such, or similar,
episodes. Preference was also given to those who experienced significant post
traumatic stress (P.T.S.) symptoms including flashbacks, nightmares, anxiety attacks,
crying spells or violent episodes, i.e. throwing things, breaking things, etc.
By design all subjects were l8 years of age or older.
A
second objective was to rule out those who were not appropriate for the T.R.U.
method. For instance, an attempt was made to screen for alcohol or drug abuse.
This objective was fairly well met considering no one was asked to leave the
study for abuse reasons and in only one or two cases was alcohol or drug abuse
suspected once the study began.
A
third objective was to screen for those with “personality disorders”, i.e.
those with a history of psychosis, manic-depression or “borderline”
personalities. Those with these diagnoses are usually not helped by T.R.U.
However, in two instances an exception was
made to include two people who had long-standing bipolar diagnoses. Both were stable and consistently taking
medication as prescribed. Yet, both had very significant trauma symptoms even
on medication. Both fit other criteria as trauma survivors. I chose to include
both in part because I was curious to see how they would perform. I am so happy
that I did. One of these participants had more than 70 post traumatic symptoms
per week at intake. After three treatments that figure was 2 per week. The
other reached complete extinction. Were they misdiagnosed? Does T.R.U. help
some diagnosed bipolar? Certainly there is a need for further study here. This
objective was also fairly well met, although, I did get one person who in
retrospect appears to have been “borderline”.
That person’s results were marginal improvement.
A
fourth screening objective was to get participants who would complete the
study. All participants were asked if they had been in therapy before and how
long that process lasted. The thinking here was that those who had done
counseling and participated for at least
two or three months would probably complete the study. All participants
were also asked to commit to complete the work and to contact the study
director if there was a problem before dropping out. Only one participant in 40
actually considered dropping out to the point of contacting the study director.
The actual attrition or drop rate was 7.5 %. I am told that is quite good for a
study of this magnitude. All participants were asked to complete a Consent to
Participate Form indicating the study was voluntary. All dropouts were in the
control group. That was not surprising since those in the control group were
asked to wait for a period of 30 days before treatment. For future reference, I
would have included more subjects in the control group for this reason.
With the exception of the alcohol and drug abuse issue, relatively
little screening was done.
Once admitted to the study, participants were randomly assigned. That is
to say, they were alternately assigned to either therapist or the control group
until all slots were filled.
The actual Research Study Design looked like this.
Control Group Pre-Test
Minimum 30 Day Waiting Period
Re-Test
PsychoSocial
Evaluation Three T.R.U. Treatments
Minimum Two Week
Waiting Period Post-Test
Minimum Four
Month Waiting Period Follow-up Test
Experimental Group
Pre-Test PsychoSocial
Evaluation Three T.R.U. Treat.
Minimum 2 Week
Waiting Period Post-Test
Minimum Four Month Waiting Period Follow-up Test
The Experimental Group was divided between Therapist I, founder of
T.R.U. and Therapist II, a T.R.U. trained therapist. The former had 1800 or
more pre Research Study trials with T.R.U., the latter had zero pre-Research
Study trials with T.R.U. The second, trained therapist had eight 45 minute
T.R.U. pre-Research Study training sessions with the T.R.U. founder. Therapist
II, although a licensed, insured professional with 10 years of clinical
experience, had no prior trauma related training or experience. (Note attached Psychometrist’s Report for
more details).
Each participant was tested with the Trauma Symptom Inventory, a
standardized trauma test for adults by John Briere, a nationally recognized
trauma specialist and researcher. Each participant received one PsychoSocial
Evaluation and three subsequent, weekly T.R.U. treatments. Treatment sessions
were 45 minutes in duration. Each person was also Post-Tested with the T.S.I. Follow-up testing with the T.S.I. is now
underway four months after treatment. All participants were also tracked weekly
for patient report of trauma symptoms including flashbacks, nightmares, anxiety
attacks, crying spells and violent episodes, the common symptoms of
psychological trauma. Each patient was Pre-Tested and Post-Tested with the
T.S.I. Each participant was also tracked with the Patient Report noted above to
monitor changes in trauma symptom frequency.
All participants were also tracked weekly to monitor changes in
depression levels. The device used here was a mental status for depression
wherein patients were queried weekly about sleep disturbance, eating
disturbance, libido levels, social and recreational activity frequency and suicidal
ideation. Patient responses were graded on a 1-5 scale by the T.R.U. therapist.
Although, T.R.U. is not a cure for depression, significant drops in depression
are usually observed once the trauma material is removed. The average
participant’s depression level drop in this Research Study was approximately
40%.
Note the attached Psychometrist’s Report for more details, charts,
graphs and other information.
.