How Did People With Previous In-Person EMDR Experience Rate Virtual EMDR?
Most people in the Virtual EMDR study were new to Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing (EMDR). But a smaller group had an especially useful point of reference: they had previously experienced EMDR in person with a therapist.
The study asked these participants to compare the Virtual EMDR self-guided program with their earlier in-person EMDR experience across five areas:
ease of use;
therapeutic effects;
comfort and sense of security;
ability to stay engaged and focused;
and overall outcomes.
The results were generally favorable, although they were not uniform.
Across the five comparison areas, the average rating was 3.68 out of 5. The highest-rated area was ease of use, with an average of 3.80. Comfort and security averaged 3.77, engagement and focus 3.70, perceived therapeutic effects 3.57, and overall outcomes 3.54. Virtual EMDR
Just over half of respondents agreed that Virtual EMDR was comparable with their previous in-person EMDR in several individual areas, while a meaningful minority did not.
That makes the finding more interesting than a simple claim that users either “preferred” one format or the other.
Many experienced EMDR users felt that the self-guided Virtual EMDR experience compared favorably with their earlier in-person sessions, but the comparison varied considerably from person to person.
Why Is This Group Particularly Useful to Study?
Someone using EMDR for the first time can say whether they found a program easy to use, whether they felt better afterward, or whether they would recommend it.
But they cannot answer a different question:
How does this compare with EMDR conducted in person with a therapist?
Participants with previous in-person EMDR experience had actually encountered both approaches.
That gave them a personal frame of reference when comparing:
what the process felt like;
how easy it was to use;
whether they could stay focused;
how comfortable they felt;
and how they judged the results.
This is why the Virtual EMDR study used different questions depending on previous EMDR experience. People without prior EMDR experience were asked about the self-guided platform itself, while people who had previously done in-person EMDR received comparison questions. Virtual EMDR
The earlier article What Was the Virtual EMDR Study? A Look at the Participants, Design and Questions Asked explains that branching study design in more detail.
How Many Participants Had Previous EMDR Experience?
Most did not.
The detailed Phase 2 report states that 254 of the 315 respondents had no previous EMDR experience. The comparison section therefore involved a much smaller subgroup of experienced EMDR users. Virtual EMDR
That difference is worth keeping in mind.
The comparison findings do not represent all 315 study participants. They represent the subset who could reasonably compare Virtual EMDR with something they had previously experienced in person.
That smaller sample makes the comparison useful but also means that individual differences can have a larger effect on the overall percentages.
How Was the Comparison Measured?
Participants responded to statements using a five-point scale.
A rating of:
1 meant complete disagreement;
3 represented a neutral response;
5 meant complete agreement.
The five comparison questions asked whether Virtual EMDR was similar to or better than previous in-person EMDR in areas such as ease, therapeutic effect, comfort, engagement, and overall outcome.
When the five items were averaged together, the overall comparison score was 3.68 out of 5. Virtual EMDR
The study report also found that 44% of experienced users had average comparison ratings of 4.0 or higher across the five areas. Virtual EMDR
That does not mean 44% scientifically proved the two methods equivalent.
It means that, across the comparison questions, nearly half of this experienced subgroup gave consistently favorable ratings when comparing the self-guided program with their earlier in-person experience.
Ease of Use Received the Highest Rating
The strongest comparison involved ease of use.
Participants were asked whether Virtual EMDR was as easy to use as their previous in-person EMDR sessions.
The average rating was 3.80 out of 5, the highest of the five comparison measures.
The detailed report found that:
31% strongly agreed;
27% agreed;
14% were neutral;
and a smaller group disagreed or strongly disagreed.
The report summarized this as 58% agreeing or strongly agreeing that Virtual EMDR was as easy to use as in-person EMDR. Virtual EMDR
This result is particularly relevant to a self-guided program.
With in-person EMDR, a therapist directs the session. With Virtual EMDR, the program provides the structure and the user moves through it independently.
The comparison suggests that, for many people who already knew what in-person EMDR felt like, moving to a structured self-guided format did not make the process feel substantially harder to use.
How Did Users Compare the Therapeutic Effects?
Participants were also asked whether the therapeutic effects they experienced with Virtual EMDR felt comparable with their previous in-person EMDR.
The average score was 3.57 out of 5.
About 51% agreed or strongly agreed that the therapeutic effects were comparable:
25% strongly agreed;
26% agreed;
14% were neutral;
and 20% disagreed or strongly disagreed. Virtual EMDR
This result is important, but the wording matters.
These participants were evaluating their own perception of therapeutic impact.
They were not randomly assigned to receive self-guided EMDR or in-person EMDR while researchers measured the two treatments under identical conditions.
So the finding supports saying:
Just over half of experienced users felt that the therapeutic effect of Virtual EMDR was comparable with their previous in-person experience.
It does not establish that the two treatment formats have been scientifically proven equivalent.
What About Comfort and Security?
This was one of the more strongly rated comparisons.
Participants were asked whether Virtual EMDR provided a sense of comfort and security comparable with their previous in-person sessions.
The average score was 3.77 out of 5.
The report found that:
30% strongly agreed;
another 30% agreed;
11% were neutral;
and 16% disagreed or strongly disagreed.
Overall, the study reported that 60% felt Virtual EMDR provided comparable comfort and security. Virtual EMDR
This is useful because the absence of a therapist physically present could reasonably have made the self-guided format feel very different.
For the majority of experienced users answering this question, that difference did not prevent them from reporting a comparable level of comfort.
At the same time, the responses were not universal. A smaller group clearly did not experience the formats in the same way.
Could People Stay as Focused and Engaged?
Another question compared participants' ability to remain engaged and focused.
The average rating was 3.70 out of 5.
About 51% agreed or strongly agreed that their focus and engagement with Virtual EMDR were comparable with in-person sessions:
31% strongly agreed;
20% agreed;
18% were neutral;
and 17% disagreed or strongly disagreed. Virtual EMDR
This is a useful comparison because self-guided and therapist-guided EMDR differ substantially in who directs the session.
With in-person EMDR, another person is actively guiding the process.
With Virtual EMDR, the user follows the program independently.
The study suggests that roughly half of these experienced users felt they could remain comparably engaged without live therapist guidance.
Others did not.
That variation is important because it suggests there may not be one delivery format that feels the same to everyone.
How Did Users Rate Their Overall Outcomes?
The most direct comparison asked users whether the overall outcomes they experienced with Virtual EMDR were comparable with, or better than, the outcomes they remembered from in-person EMDR.
The average rating was 3.54 out of 5.
The study reported that:
24% strongly agreed;
31% agreed;
7% were neutral;
and 24% disagreed or strongly disagreed.
Overall, 55% agreed or strongly agreed that the outcomes were comparable or better. Virtual EMDR
This was the lowest average among the five comparison questions, although it was still above the neutral midpoint.
That difference is worth noticing.
Experienced users rated Virtual EMDR most favorably on ease of use and comfort, while ratings of therapeutic effects and overall outcomes were somewhat lower and showed greater variation.
That is more informative than simply averaging everything together.
What Does the Overall Score of 3.68 Mean?
When researchers combined all five comparison questions, the average was 3.68 out of 5.
The study report found that:
24% had average ratings between 4.5 and 5;
20% averaged between 4.0 and 4.49;
28% averaged between 3.0 and 3.99;
and 28% averaged below 3.0.
So 44% of experienced users averaged 4.0 or higher across the comparison measures. Virtual EMDR
That distribution is important.
It shows a meaningful group who rated Virtual EMDR very favorably compared with previous in-person treatment.
It also shows another meaningful group who gave more moderate or unfavorable comparisons.
So the study does not support describing the experienced-user response as unanimous.
It supports saying that comparisons tended to lean positive, but there was substantial individual variation.
Did Participants Say Virtual EMDR Was Better Than In-Person EMDR?
Some participants gave ratings consistent with that view, but the study cannot tell us precisely how many believed Virtual EMDR was clinically superior.
This is because the rating scale asked participants to agree or disagree with comparative statements rather than conducting an objective clinical comparison between two simultaneously measured treatments.
A rating of 5 could indicate very strong agreement that the Virtual EMDR experience compared favorably, but that is still a participant's retrospective judgment.
The findings therefore are best described as perceived comparability rather than proof of superiority.
That distinction preserves what is genuinely interesting about the data without asking the study to establish something it was not designed to test.
How Is This Different From Research Comparing Online and In-Person Therapist-Guided EMDR?
This is an important distinction.
The earlier article Online vs In-Person EMDR: What Have Studies Found? examines people receiving EMDR with a therapist in both formats.
In those studies:
one group receives therapist-guided EMDR in person;
another receives therapist-guided EMDR remotely.
The therapist remains part of treatment in both groups.
The Virtual EMDR comparison is different.
It compares people's memories of therapist-guided in-person EMDR with their later experience using a self-guided online EMDR program.
Two things have therefore changed:
the treatment is online rather than in person;
it is self-guided rather than therapist-guided.
That makes this comparison particularly interesting, but it also means the results cannot tell us whether any perceived difference came from the online setting, the absence of a live therapist, the Virtual EMDR platform itself, or other differences between the treatment experiences.
Why Aren't These Results a Head-to-Head Clinical Trial?
In a randomized head-to-head trial, researchers might recruit people with similar symptoms and randomly assign them to:
therapist-guided in-person EMDR;
or self-guided Virtual EMDR.
The same outcomes would then be measured before and after treatment.
That design could more directly answer whether the formats produced different clinical outcomes.
The Virtual EMDR study did something else.
It asked users who already had past experience with in-person EMDR to look back and compare it with their more recent Virtual EMDR experience.
That provides valuable information about how experienced users perceive the two formats.
But memory, differences in what was being addressed, the amount of treatment received, and the passage of time could all influence those comparisons.
The study therefore answers:
“How did people who had experienced both approaches rate Virtual EMDR relative to their previous in-person EMDR?”
It does not fully answer:
“Which treatment produces better clinical outcomes under controlled conditions?”
Why Are the Findings Still Useful?
Because user experience matters.
A treatment format may be available, technically sophisticated, or supported by theory, but people still have to be able to use it effectively.
This subgroup had already experienced traditional EMDR.
They therefore knew what the treatment process felt like in a therapist-guided setting.
Many still reported that a self-guided digital program compared favorably in:
usability;
comfort;
focus;
therapeutic impact;
and overall results.
That makes these responses useful when trying to understand whether self-guided EMDR feels recognizable and workable to people who already have experience with conventional EMDR.
It also complements the findings discussed in What Did the Virtual EMDR Study Find About Symptoms, Emotional Regulation and Daily Life?, which examined reported changes across the entire study population rather than only experienced EMDR users.
What Can We Reasonably Conclude?
The experienced-user comparison produced a generally favorable but varied picture.
Ease of use was rated most strongly, averaging 3.80 out of 5, with 58% agreeing that Virtual EMDR was as easy to use as their earlier in-person treatment. Virtual EMDR
Comfort and security averaged 3.77, with 60% reporting a comparable experience.
Engagement and focus averaged 3.70, with 51% reporting comparability.
Therapeutic effect averaged 3.57, again with 51% agreeing that Virtual EMDR compared favorably.
And overall outcomes averaged 3.54, with 55% describing the outcomes as comparable or better. Virtual EMDR
Across all five areas, the overall comparison score was 3.68, and 44% of experienced users had average ratings of at least 4.0. Virtual EMDR
Those findings support a measured conclusion:
Many people who had previously experienced therapist-guided in-person EMDR felt that the self-guided Virtual EMDR program compared favorably with it, particularly for ease of use and comfort. Perceived therapeutic effects and overall outcomes were also favorable for a little over half of respondents, but the range of responses shows that the two formats did not feel equivalent to everyone.
Frequently Asked Questions
Did people with previous in-person EMDR generally like Virtual EMDR?
The comparison ratings leaned positive. Across the five comparison areas, the average score was 3.68 out of 5, and 44% of experienced users averaged 4.0 or higher. Virtual EMDR
What did experienced users rate most highly?
Ease of use received the highest average rating at 3.80 out of 5. Comfort and security came next at 3.77. Virtual EMDR
Did users think Virtual EMDR had the same therapeutic effect as in-person EMDR?
Just over half did. The study reported that 51% agreed or strongly agreed that the therapeutic effects were comparable with their previous in-person EMDR experience. Virtual EMDR
Did users say the overall outcomes were comparable?
Yes, for a majority of respondents answering that question. 55% agreed or strongly agreed that their overall Virtual EMDR outcomes were comparable with or better than their previous in-person experience. Virtual EMDR
Does this prove Virtual EMDR works as well as in-person EMDR?
No. These were retrospective user comparisons, not a randomized head-to-head clinical trial. The findings tell us how people who had experienced both formats perceived them, rather than proving clinical equivalence.
Conclusion
One of the most interesting parts of the Virtual EMDR study involved people who already knew what in-person, therapist-guided EMDR was like.
When these experienced users compared their earlier treatment with the self-guided Virtual EMDR program, the average ratings were favorable across all five areas studied.
Ease of use and comfort received the strongest scores. Just over half of participants also reported comparable therapeutic effects, engagement, and overall outcomes. Across all five measures, 44% of experienced users averaged a rating of 4.0 or higher. Virtual EMDR
There was also meaningful variation. Some users rated the comparison neutrally or unfavorably, particularly when considering therapeutic effects and overall outcomes.
That makes the study's finding more specific than saying Virtual EMDR was simply “as good as” in-person treatment.
Among people who had experienced both approaches, many felt that Virtual EMDR compared well with their previous in-person EMDR—especially for ease of use and comfort—and a little over half reported comparable therapeutic effects and overall outcomes. The findings describe experienced users' own comparisons, rather than proving that self-guided and in-person EMDR are clinically equivalent.
