Evidence with integrity

Credibility means naming what we know—and what remains open.

IDM has not yet been directly tested as a complete treatment or organizational-change method. Research can support particular practices and ideas without proving the framework as a whole.

Explore the evidence map

What research may supportSpecific claims

Where the evidence stands

What remains openIDM as an integrated framework

Explore the evidence map

Choose an ordinary IDM move. See the science it touches.

Each connection is a claim to examine. Related research may be indirect, limited to certain groups, or focused on a different use or outcome; it does not prove IDM as a whole.

IDM practice

Observe and name the state

Related mechanismAffect labeling

Putting an emotion into words can create a little distance from it and support regulation. IDM uses that familiar process when it asks someone to name the state without becoming the state.

Appears in

Emotion-regulation research · Mindfulness-based approaches

Selected sources

Lieberman et al. (2007); Torre & Lieberman (2018)

Responsible claim: these sources relate to this practice. Who was studied, how it was used, what changed, and the limits of the research still matter. IDM’s added value remains untested.

Three kinds of grounding

Not every source answers the same question.

Keeping these layers separate prevents scientific research, clinical tradition, and lived-experience wisdom from being treated as interchangeable.

External evidence

What research speaks to a specific claim?

Research may support a particular practice, process, use, or outcome related to IDM.

The language should match who and what was actually studied. Related research cannot validate IDM by association.

Clinical lineages

Which recognized approaches inform the clinical work?

IDM draws from CBT, DBT, ACT, mindfulness, attachment-informed care, parts-informed work, behavioral activation, and somatic practice.

Lineage explains influence. It is not evidence that IDM reproduces the outcomes of those approaches.

Conceptual influences

Which sources help describe lived experience?

Carl Jung and contemplative traditions helped shape IDM’s questions about awareness, tension, meaning, and integration.

Conceptual influence is not proof of clinical effectiveness. These ideas remain open to examination and correction.

The honest line

Related research is not the same as proof of IDM.

A source may support one practice or idea without validating the framework that brings several ideas together. The language used should match what was actually studied.

What IDM can responsibly say

Some practices and ideas within IDM are informed by named areas of research.
Its clinical and conceptual influences are identified.
Its ideas remain open to correction.
Its central questions can be studied.

What IDM cannot yet say

That IDM is a validated standalone treatment.
That its sequencing improves outcomes beyond its component parts.
That it is appropriate for every person, diagnosis, or clinical situation.
That contemplative or metaphysical claims are clinical science.

The research invitation

Good questions are not threats to the method. They are the path forward.

Positive, null, and corrective findings would all be useful. Each would clarify what IDM contributes and what it needs to revise.

Research question

Does assessing what is shaping the moment, available capacity, and context improve how an intervention is received?

One possible approachCompare intervention reception with and without an explicit, collaborative organizing-pattern and capacity assessment.

Possible measuresSense of being understood · intervention receptivity · session alliance

Discuss research or institutional collaboration