What Was the Virtual EMDR Study? A Look at the Participants, Design and Questions Asked
Most EMDR research has examined therapist-guided treatment. The Virtual EMDR study asked a different question: what can we learn from people who have actually used a self-guided online EMDR program?
The study examined the experiences of hundreds of Virtual EMDR users, including their reasons for using the program, their trauma and symptom backgrounds, how often they used it, whether they had previous experience with EMDR, and how they rated changes in symptoms, emotional regulation, daily functioning, self-efficacy, and other areas.
The analysis included 315 respondents who had used the Virtual EMDR self-guided program. More than three-quarters had never previously done EMDR, while a smaller group had prior experience with in-person EMDR and could therefore answer additional questions comparing the two experiences. (Virtual EMDR)
The study provides useful information about how real users experienced a self-guided EMDR platform. At the same time, understanding the study requires understanding its design.
It was not a randomized controlled trial comparing Virtual EMDR with another treatment or a no-treatment group. It was a study of users reporting on their own experiences with the platform.
That distinction is important because different research designs answer different questions.
What Was the Virtual EMDR Study Trying to Learn?
The study was designed to examine more than whether users simply “liked” the program.
Researchers collected information across several broad areas, including:
why people were using Virtual EMDR;
the types of trauma and psychological concerns they reported;
previous therapy and EMDR experience;
how frequently and for how long they used the program;
perceived changes in trauma-related symptoms;
emotional regulation;
functioning in everyday life;
cognitive and behavioral changes;
self-efficacy and feelings of empowerment;
usability and satisfaction;
and, for people with previous in-person EMDR experience, how Virtual EMDR compared with that earlier experience.
The initial analysis organized the data into demographic, clinical, technological, usage, and outcome-related sections. The study report describes seven major experience and outcome areas, including symptom reduction, emotional regulation, functionality in daily life, user experience, comparison with previous in-person EMDR, cognitive and behavioral change, self-efficacy, and overall satisfaction. (Virtual EMDR)
This made the study broader than a simple customer-satisfaction questionnaire. It attempted to understand who was using the program, how they were using it, and what changes they believed they experienced while using it.
Who Participated in the Study?
The analysis included 315 Virtual EMDR users. (Virtual EMDR)
Participants represented a range of ages and demographic backgrounds. The study collected information about age, gender, ethnicity, education, household income, technology use, and other characteristics so that later analyses could examine whether user experiences differed across subgroups. (Virtual EMDR)
The participants also reported a wide range of reasons for using Virtual EMDR.
General anxiety was the most frequently reported category in the study, endorsed by 191 participants. Depression was reported by 140, complex PTSD by 110, and childhood abuse by 105. Other reported experiences included grief, medical trauma, combat-related trauma, natural-disaster trauma, and other concerns. Because participants could report more than one category, these figures describe overlapping experiences rather than separate groups. (Virtual EMDR)
This is an important feature of the sample. The study did not consist only of people with one narrowly defined PTSD diagnosis or one particular type of traumatic event. It included users coming to the platform with a variety of psychological concerns and trauma histories.
Were Participants All Experienced With EMDR?
No.
In fact, most were not.
Of the 315 respondents, 254 had no previous EMDR experience. That means more than three-quarters of the study participants were first-time EMDR users. (Virtual EMDR)
This allowed the study to look separately at two different kinds of users.
People with no previous EMDR experience were asked questions about their experience of the Virtual EMDR platform itself—for example, how easy it was to navigate and whether they were able to remain engaged with the process.
People who had previously received in-person EMDR were given a different set of questions allowing them to compare the self-guided Virtual EMDR experience with their earlier in-person treatment. (Virtual EMDR)
This branching design is useful because someone who has never experienced EMDR cannot reasonably answer whether Virtual EMDR felt comparable with in-person EMDR. The survey therefore did not ask every participant the same comparison questions.
How Was the Study Designed?
The study was an observational, survey-based evaluation of people who had already used the Virtual EMDR self-guided program.
Participants answered questions about their backgrounds, their use of the program, and the changes or experiences they associated with it.
Many outcome questions used a five-point agreement scale, ranging from strong disagreement to strong agreement. Participants rated statements relating to areas such as symptom reduction, emotional regulation, functioning, changes in thoughts and behavior, and self-efficacy. (Virtual EMDR)
The initial Phase 2 report, prepared in May 2025, emphasized descriptive statistics: how participants responded, how responses were distributed, and how the sample differed across demographic and clinical variables. The report specifically noted that this initial phase did not include psychometric testing, factor-structure analysis, or hypothesis testing. (Virtual EMDR)
A later analysis examined several of the study's findings statistically, including whether average ratings across major experience domains were significantly above the neutral midpoint of the rating scale. (Virtual EMDR)
So the project developed in stages: first describing the sample and the response patterns, and then examining some of those patterns statistically.
Was This a Randomized Controlled Trial?
No.
This is one of the most important things to understand about the study.
Participants were not randomly assigned to Virtual EMDR or another treatment. There was no separate untreated control group and no randomized comparison with therapist-guided EMDR.
Instead, the study collected self-reported information from people who had used Virtual EMDR.
That makes it useful for questions such as:
What kinds of people are using the platform?
What problems are they using it for?
How do they describe changes after using it?
How usable do they find the program?
Do first-time EMDR users and experienced EMDR users describe it differently?
How do people with prior in-person EMDR experience compare the two formats?
It cannot answer exactly the same question as a randomized controlled trial asking whether one treatment caused better outcomes than another.
That does not make one type of research “real” and the other meaningless. It means the designs provide different kinds of information.
What Symptoms and Experiences Did the Study Examine?
The study asked participants about several specific areas of psychological and everyday functioning.
For symptom reduction, participants were asked about changes in:
intrusive thoughts or memories;
physical reactions to reminders of trauma;
avoidance of trauma-related triggers;
feelings of being emotionally overwhelmed;
and overall symptom severity.
The study also examined emotional regulation—how participants felt they were managing emotions after using the program.
Daily functioning was another major area. Questions explored whether participants felt better able to engage in everyday activities, relationships, work or school responsibilities, concentration, and enjoyable activities. (Virtual EMDR)
Other sections examined cognitive and behavioral change and participants' sense of self-efficacy and empowerment.
Taken together, these questions attempted to look beyond one narrow definition of improvement. The study was interested not only in whether people reported fewer symptoms, but also whether they perceived changes in how they functioned and managed their lives.
Why Did the Study Ask About How People Used the Program?
Usage patterns can provide important context for interpreting survey results.
Participants were asked how frequently they used Virtual EMDR, how long they had been using it, when they last used it, and how many sessions they had completed. (Virtual EMDR)
Those questions allow researchers to explore whether different levels of engagement are associated with different reported experiences.
For example, later analysis found differences in satisfaction according to reported usage frequency. That does not by itself prove that a particular frequency causes better outcomes, because users were not randomly assigned to different schedules. But it creates a question that can be investigated more closely in future research. (Virtual EMDR)
This illustrates one of the purposes of observational research: it can reveal patterns worth examining in more controlled studies.
Why Ask About Technology?
Because Virtual EMDR is delivered online, the study also examined factors that would not normally be central to research on therapy delivered in an office.
Participants were asked about:
their comfort using technology for therapy;
the type of device they used;
and the reliability of their internet connection.
These questions help separate the psychological intervention from the practical experience of using a digital platform.
If a person struggles with navigation or unreliable technology, that could influence how they experience the program regardless of the EMDR process itself.
The study was therefore designed to look at both therapeutic experience and digital usability.
Why Include People Who Had Previously Done In-Person EMDR?
This subgroup provided a particularly interesting comparison.
Participants with previous in-person EMDR experience were asked whether Virtual EMDR felt comparable in areas including:
ease of use;
therapeutic impact;
comfort;
ability to remain focused and engaged;
and overall outcomes.
Because these users had experienced both approaches, they could provide an informed personal comparison.
But it is important to interpret that comparison correctly.
This was not a randomized head-to-head trial of Virtual EMDR versus in-person EMDR. Participants were recalling and comparing their own experiences with the two formats.
That makes the findings valuable as user-experience data, but it does not establish statistical equivalence between self-guided and therapist-guided EMDR.
A later article in this series will look specifically at how participants with previous in-person EMDR experience rated Virtual EMDR.
What Were the Main Research Questions?
Taken together, the study was trying to answer several broad questions.
First, who uses self-guided Virtual EMDR?
The demographic, clinical, and trauma-history questions were designed to describe the people using the platform.
Second, how do people use it?
The study examined frequency, duration, session count, technology, and other engagement patterns.
Third, what changes do users report?
The survey examined symptoms, emotional regulation, daily functioning, thoughts and behaviors, self-efficacy, and related areas.
Fourth, how do people experience the platform itself?
Questions addressed usability, comfort, focus, engagement, and satisfaction.
And fifth, how do experienced EMDR users perceive Virtual EMDR relative to their earlier in-person experience?
That subgroup provided a direct user perspective on similarities and differences between the two formats.
What Was the Study Not Designed to Determine?
Understanding a study also means understanding what it was not designed to show.
Because this was a user survey rather than a randomized controlled clinical trial, it cannot by itself establish that Virtual EMDR caused every improvement participants reported.
There was no randomized untreated comparison group showing what would have happened to similar people who did not use the program.
The participants were also people who had used Virtual EMDR and chose to respond to the study. Their experiences may not perfectly represent every person who uses the platform.
And because many outcomes were based on participants' own retrospective assessments of change, the results describe perceived changes reported by users rather than independently measured clinical outcomes.
Those limitations do not erase the information the study provides. They define the kinds of conclusions that can reasonably be drawn from it.
The study gives us a relatively large set of structured user-reported data about a self-guided EMDR platform. It does not replace randomized clinical research on therapist-guided EMDR—or future controlled research specifically examining self-guided Virtual EMDR.
How Does This Study Fit Into the Larger EMDR Research Picture?
Most established EMDR evidence comes from research on therapist-guided treatment, particularly for PTSD.
The Virtual EMDR study asks a more specific and relatively newer question: what happens when people use an EMDR-based process in a self-guided digital format?
That makes the study relevant to a part of EMDR research that is different from the large body of traditional clinical trials.
Other researchers have also studied online EMDR, although much of that work concerns therapist-guided EMDR delivered remotely rather than self-guided programs.
For example, a published survey of 148 clients receiving therapist-guided online EMDR found high levels of comfort and willingness to recommend the online format. (PubMed Central (PMC))
Those studies and the Virtual EMDR study should not be treated as interchangeable. One examines therapist-guided online treatment; the other examines users of a self-guided platform.
Together, however, they illustrate the widening range of questions researchers are beginning to ask about how EMDR can be delivered outside the traditional in-person therapy setting.
Frequently Asked Questions
How many people participated in the Virtual EMDR study?
The Phase 2 analysis included 315 respondents who had used the Virtual EMDR self-guided program. (Virtual EMDR)
Had most participants used EMDR before?
No. 254 of the 315 respondents—more than three-quarters—reported no previous EMDR experience. Participants with prior in-person EMDR experience received additional comparison questions. (Virtual EMDR)
Was the Virtual EMDR study a randomized clinical trial?
No. It was a survey-based observational study of people who had used the platform. Participants were not randomly assigned to Virtual EMDR or a comparison treatment.
What did the study measure?
It examined areas including symptom reduction, emotional regulation, everyday functioning, cognitive and behavioral changes, self-efficacy, usability, satisfaction, and—among participants with previous in-person EMDR experience—comparisons between the two formats. (Virtual EMDR)
Where can the study materials be reviewed?
Virtual EMDR publishes the study reports, key findings, analysis, and presentation materials on its EMDR Study Results page. (Virtual EMDR)
Conclusion
The Virtual EMDR study was designed to learn about the real-world experiences of people using a self-guided online EMDR platform.
Its Phase 2 analysis included 315 users with varied backgrounds, symptoms, trauma histories, and levels of previous therapy experience. Most had never done EMDR before, while a smaller group with previous in-person EMDR experience was able to compare the two approaches. (Virtual EMDR)
The study asked about far more than general satisfaction. It examined reported symptom changes, emotional regulation, daily functioning, thoughts and behaviors, self-efficacy, usage patterns, technology, usability, and previous EMDR experience.
Its design also defines its limits. It was not a randomized controlled trial, so its findings need to be understood as structured user-reported evidence rather than the same type of controlled clinical evidence found in many therapist-guided EMDR trials.
That makes the study useful for the question it was designed to explore:
Who is using self-guided Virtual EMDR, how are they using it, and what do they report experiencing when they do?
The next Virtual EMDR articles in this series will look more closely at what those participants actually reported about symptoms, emotional regulation, daily life, and comparisons with previous in-person EMDR.
