Instead, Phillips sees that the issues surrounding #2 are the most important and neglected. He finds a lack of commonality in number of sessions, time of sessions, intervention, and even parental involvement (Phillips, 19). By its very nature, though, since each individual client is coming from a diverse background, would it not stand to reason that some children might need a longer session, or more sessions, than others -- depending upon the severity of their issue. Similarly, since each individual responds to play in a slightly divergent manner, their individual needs will naturally vary. but, is this not the same as other models of cognitive therapy? Some adults suffer from minor compulsions; say needing to quit smoking; some suffer from stronger issues; and some are ill enough to require daily therapy; why should this be different with children. More important, why should this invalidate an entire methodology?
Phillips' argument is important in that it "reminds us of current evidence-based standards and challenges us to initiate methodologically sound studies" (Baggerly, 35). However, when we critically compare the research done since 1985 we do find that "because most play therapy research uses the design of play therapy vs. absence of intervention," and are therefore unable to conclusively say that play therapy is the most effective treatment (Bratton, 386). Is this really the most important thing about play therapy that should concern the field, though, or should...
Our semester plans gives you unlimited, unrestricted access to our entire library of resources —writing tools, guides, example essays, tutorials, class notes, and more.
Get Started Now