Cambria Walsh posted:Interesting article on Triple P, though that is not a program that was looked at for trauma treatment specifically because the population that is in the research has not been identified as experiencing trauma and it is not a clinical intervention, The only review of it on the CEBC in relation to child abuse is primary prevention. The definitions of each topic area give a clear picture of what was looked at for the rating in that area.
There are also adult trauma treatment resources on the CEBC http://www.cebc4cw.org/topic/trauma-treatment-adult/. You can delve deeper into the research that leads to the ratings on the website as well.
I would agree that all research needs to be taken with a grain of salt. I would also echo that it is not one size fits all, and that you need to look at individual client needs. There are a lot of complicating factors that surround research studies, but they certainly provide us with more information than simply using "treatment as usual"!
Take a look at how Seeking Safety is rated on Cochrane Reports -- one of the clearest endorsements of any program. Similarly there are some therapies not listed that are at least promising, such as Acceptance and Commitment Therapy, which has been used to help patients with the effects of childhood trauma. And I would argue that ratings on some therapies are out of date when viewed in terms of current publications -- like Ricky Greenwald's use of Progressive Counting. And internet / computer-assisted CBT isn't listed, yet it should be, again given recent research -- whether or not it's just not listed, being lumped in with other CBT -- not really the same IMHO, and the authors of some "recent" papers (its use, especially in European studies, has been around for several years, and its dynamics are different from face-to-face work).