The claims made for the linden method have kept on coming. The latest has just (May 2014) been put up with a fanfare that it is an independent piece of research.
On his facebook page, Charles Linden claims, in response to question about whether the study was peer reviewed…..
“it has been peer reviewed by psychologists and psychotherapists. No one else uses The Linden Method in practice Jess so the trial process chosen makes allowances for this. It was very strictly controlled and monitored.”
I thought it worth a brief shove to demolish it, not least to show how extraordinarily distant from anything resembling science it is. So here are a few points which any undergraduate could identify. This is not a complete list, just the “smack you in the eye” obvious ones
1. This is not a peer reviewed article. It is on Linden Webpages.
2. It is not independent. The author, Martin Jensen, is Manager of Linden Method Denmark
3. It is not an efficacy study
4. Kingston University and University of Copenhagen are unlikely to have authorised the use of their logos.
5. The introduction contains no references to published authorities
6. Those who completed questionnaires were chosen and contacted by “specialists” (alleged therapists) working for TLM. Massive source of bias
7. The specialists are falsely described as registered with “British Association of Chartered Psychotherapists” (sic) and The BPS. Clearly false claims.
8. Adherence is specified as a selection criterion!
9. Even given the extraordinary method of sampling, 39% refused to participate! Only the 61 who complied were included
10. The GAD-7 was used. Only it wasn’t! in the “measure” section it specifies that it was phrased “Prior to doing the Linden Method, how often have you been bothered by the following problems?”. I’m pretty sure that the copyright holders did not permit this change, and the change means that it is not the standardised measure it is supposed to be.
11. Two measures…but not. They completed both “before” and “after” measures at the same time After. Hah! Do I need to spell out how inappropriate that is?
12. Analysis: the data were said to be ordinal. Wrong.
13. The discussion reads as a faux cautious advert for the linden method.
14. There is a limitations section. Heck, the whole paper is a limitations section.
There is more that could be said, but it is not worth the reader or writers time here. Individually, each of the items above would rule out regarding this as “research”. This is not just a useless paper: it is actively misleading, and in my view shows signs that it was intended to be so, as does its representation in the Linden publicity machine. A shameless piece.

In my original review, I pointed out that extraordinary claims, such as those made for the Linden Method, require extraordinary evidence. Well, I got the extraordinary evidence in this “research”. However, this was definitely not what I meant!