We do not have empirical research directly verifying the effectiveness of the Immanuel Approach, but carefully documented case studies show consistent, strong positive results. There is also indirect support for the effectiveness of the Immanuel Approach, based on similarities between the Immanuel Approach and psychotherapy modalities that have been verified as effective by empirical research.
Regarding case study support, it is a very common practice—in all branches of medicine, in mental health care, and in emotional healing ministry—for care providers to use a new treatment method on the basis of positive case study results, even though the effectiveness of the new intervention has not yet been confirmed by empirical research. There are usually many years between the case study description of a new treatment method and confirmation of the new method with empirical research. In fact, empirical research, such as blinded, controlled studies, is often undertaken only after many practitioners have begun to use a new treatment on the basis of case study reports, and enough patients display positive results to justify embarking on more systematic research (which is tedious, time-consuming, and very expensive). In the history of medicine and mental health care, many millions of patients have been effectively treated with new interventions even though the new interventions had not yet been confirmed by empirical research, but rather were only supported by positive case studies.
With respect to the Immanuel Approach, my colleagues and I have a growing pile of carefully documented case studies showing dramatic, long-lasting positive results. For example, the Live Ministry Session DVDs, such as Renae: Healing Helps Parenting, Rita #3: Jesus Is Better than Candy, Maggie #3: Labor & Delivery Trauma, and Ian: “I’m Not Enough,” provide examples of carefully documented Immanuel Approach case studies with observable, long-lasting positive results. Also, most of the true story examples in this book come from carefully documented case studies that include observable, long-lasting positive results.
Regarding indirect support, the Immanuel Approach shares a number of important principles and techniques with psychotherapy interventions that do have strong empirical research support. As of April 2016, extensive medical and psychological research shows that EMDR (Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing), exposure therapy, and cognitive-behavioral therapy significantly reduce the signs and symptoms of a number of mental illnesses, including Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), Obsessive Compulsive Disorder (OCD), and panic disorder. And the Immanuel Approach includes many of the most important principles and techniques from each of these other modalities. For example, recognizing that distorted, negative cognitions can be anchored in traumatic memories, recognizing that these distorted, negative cognitions are very disruptive, and deliberately working to resolve these distorted negative cognitions are important principles and objectives shared by the Immanuel Approach, cognitive-behavioral psychotherapy, and EMDR. And deliberately helping a person to successfully process past painful experiences that have been carried as traumatic memories is one of the central objectives of both the Immanuel Approach and EMDR.
These other psychotherapies have strong research support for efficacy, and the Immanuel Approach includes many of the most important principles and techniques from these psychotherapies. Therefore, the empirical research demonstrating that these other psychotherapies are effective provides strong indirect support for the efficacy of the Immanuel Approach.
For additional discussion of the validity of case studies as supporting evidence, and also for additional discussion of the indirect support from shared principles and techniques between the Immanuel Approach and research-confirmed psychotherapies, see “The Place of the Immanuel Approach/Theophostic®-based Emotional Healing In the Treatment of Clinical Disorders” (available as a free download from www.kclehman.com). For brief additional discussion of the shared principles and techniques between the Immanuel Approach and research-confirmed psychotherapies, see the next FAQ entry, below. For intermediate-length additional discussion of the principles and techniques that are shared between the Immanuel Approach and research-supported psychotherapies, see the following essays: “Cognitive Therapy and the Immanuel Approach/Theophostic®-based emotional healing,” “The Immanuel Approach, Theophostic,® and EMDR: FAQs and Common Misunderstandings,” and “Exposure Therapy and the Immanuel Approach/Theophostic®-based emotional healing” (all available as free downloads from www.kclehman.com). And for very detailed Immanuel Approach case studies and extensive discussion of the principles and techniques that the Immanuel Approach shares with well established psychotherapies, see Dr. Mark Hattendorf’s 466 page doctoral thesis, Narrative Case Studies Exploring Inner Healing in Clinical Settings.

Regarding case study support, it is a very common practice—in all branches of medicine, in mental health care, and in emotional healing ministry—for care providers to use a new treatment method on the basis of positive case study results, even though the effectiveness of the new intervention has not yet been confirmed by empirical research. There are usually many years between the case study description of a new treatment method and confirmation of the new method with empirical research. In fact, empirical research, such as blinded, controlled studies, is often undertaken only after many practitioners have begun to use a new treatment on the basis of case study reports, and enough patients display positive results to justify embarking on more systematic research (which is tedious, time-consuming, and very expensive). In the history of medicine and mental health care, many millions of patients have been effectively treated with new interventions even though the new interventions had not yet been confirmed by empirical research, but rather were only supported by positive case studies.
With respect to the Immanuel Approach, my colleagues and I have a growing pile of carefully documented case studies showing dramatic, long-lasting positive results. For example, the Live Ministry Session DVDs, such as Renae: Healing Helps Parenting, Rita #3: Jesus Is Better than Candy, Maggie #3: Labor & Delivery Trauma, and Ian: “I’m Not Enough,” provide examples of carefully documented Immanuel Approach case studies with observable, long-lasting positive results. Also, most of the true story examples in this book come from carefully documented case studies that include observable, long-lasting positive results.
Regarding indirect support, the Immanuel Approach shares a number of important principles and techniques with psychotherapy interventions that do have strong empirical research support. As of April 2016, extensive medical and psychological research shows that EMDR (Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing), exposure therapy, and cognitive-behavioral therapy significantly reduce the signs and symptoms of a number of mental illnesses, including Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), Obsessive Compulsive Disorder (OCD), and panic disorder. And the Immanuel Approach includes many of the most important principles and techniques from each of these other modalities. For example, recognizing that distorted, negative cognitions can be anchored in traumatic memories, recognizing that these distorted, negative cognitions are very disruptive, and deliberately working to resolve these distorted negative cognitions are important principles and objectives shared by the Immanuel Approach, cognitive-behavioral psychotherapy, and EMDR. And deliberately helping a person to successfully process past painful experiences that have been carried as traumatic memories is one of the central objectives of both the Immanuel Approach and EMDR.
These other psychotherapies have strong research support for efficacy, and the Immanuel Approach includes many of the most important principles and techniques from these psychotherapies. Therefore, the empirical research demonstrating that these other psychotherapies are effective provides strong indirect support for the efficacy of the Immanuel Approach.
For additional discussion of the validity of case studies as supporting evidence, and also for additional discussion of the indirect support from shared principles and techniques between the Immanuel Approach and research-confirmed psychotherapies, see “The Place of the Immanuel Approach/Theophostic®-based Emotional Healing In the Treatment of Clinical Disorders” (available as a free download from www.kclehman.com). For brief additional discussion of the shared principles and techniques between the Immanuel Approach and research-confirmed psychotherapies, see the next FAQ entry, below. For intermediate-length additional discussion of the principles and techniques that are shared between the Immanuel Approach and research-supported psychotherapies, see the following essays: “Cognitive Therapy and the Immanuel Approach/Theophostic®-based emotional healing,” “The Immanuel Approach, Theophostic,® and EMDR: FAQs and Common Misunderstandings,” and “Exposure Therapy and the Immanuel Approach/Theophostic®-based emotional healing” (all available as free downloads from www.kclehman.com). And for very detailed Immanuel Approach case studies and extensive discussion of the principles and techniques that the Immanuel Approach shares with well established psychotherapies, see Dr. Mark Hattendorf’s 466 page doctoral thesis, Narrative Case Studies Exploring Inner Healing in Clinical Settings.