The 2026 Frontiers study does not establish that it tested the RMTi program. Its findings should not be presented as conclusions about RMTi without that connection being demonstrated.
The 2026 study by León-Bravo and colleagues in Frontiers in Public Health examined craniosacral therapy and an intervention it called “rhythmic movement training,” including outcomes related to primitive reflexes. Important questions remain about what was delivered, who delivered it, and what relevant training those providers had. Rhythmic Movement Training International (RMTi) has requested documentation from the authors to clarify whether the intervention corresponds to the approach we teach.
What we can confirm:
- RMTi had no involvement in the study and has no affiliation with its authors.
- RMTi has no record of the authors attending RMTi courses. Because the article does not identify the movement providers, we cannot verify those providers’ RMTi training.
- The article does not report the RMT providers’ relevant training or qualifications. Its description does not establish that they delivered the RMTi program.
- The sources used to describe RMT raise serious questions. Moira Dempsey, RMTi’s founder, confirms that she did not author the journal article cited as reference 12. We have also been unable to locate reference 13 as cited.
These concerns matter when interpreting the results. Before applying a study’s findings to a named program, readers need evidence that the program was accurately identified and delivered.
The study reported no statistically significant difference between its movement intervention and its placebo comparison condition. That finding concerns the intervention tested under the study’s conditions; it does not, by itself, establish that the RMTi program is ineffective.
RMTi supports independent research, including studies reporting unfavorable results. We are seeking clear documentation of what was tested and accurate reporting of what the findings can tell us.
What is RMTi doing?
RMTi has sent the authors a detailed inquiry requesting clarification and supporting documentation about the sources, intervention protocols, provider training, fidelity, trial registration, assessments, and reported results.
Moira Dempsey previously contacted Frontiers about the article. RMTi leadership is coordinating the organizational response through the journal’s established process.
We will update this page as substantive information becomes available. Until the intervention’s relationship to RMTi is established, claims that this study demonstrates the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of the RMTi program are not supported.
We support independent research, including studies reporting unfavorable findings. Our request is for accurate identification of what was tested and an interpretation of the findings that reflects the evidence.
Frequently asked questions
Did the 2026 Frontiers study test the RMTi program?
The publication does not establish that the intervention tested was the RMTi program. The paper uses the term “rhythmic movement training,” but RMTi has no affiliation with the authors, no record of their attending RMTi courses, and no involvement in the study.
Were the authors or movement providers trained by RMTi?
RMTi has no record of the authors attending RMTi courses. The article does not identify who delivered the movement sessions or report their relevant RMT training or qualifications. We therefore cannot verify whether the providers received RMTi training. The authors and intervention providers may not have been the same people.
Does research show that rhythmic movement training doesn’t work?
The 2026 Frontiers study does not establish that the RMTi program is ineffective. It reported no statistically significant difference between its movement intervention and its placebo comparison, but the publication does not establish that it tested the RMTi program. This finding does not support a blanket claim that rhythmic movement training “doesn’t work.”
Was rhythmic movement training no better than placebo in this study?
The authors reported no statistically significant difference between the intervention they called rhythmic movement training and its placebo comparison. The study therefore did not demonstrate superiority over placebo under the conditions tested. That does not prove the interventions were equivalent or that neither had an effect. RMTi has requested additional results to clarify the size and uncertainty of the differences.
What are RMTi’s concerns about the study’s references?
Two references used to describe rhythmic movement training require clarification. Moira Dempsey, RMTi’s founder, confirms that she did not author the journal article cited as reference 12. RMTi has also been unable to locate reference 13 as cited. We have asked the authors to identify and provide the sources they actually used.
Does independent research need RMTi’s approval?
No. Independent investigators do not need RMTi’s approval to evaluate an intervention or publish unfavorable findings. Our concern is whether the intervention is accurately identified, sufficiently documented, and interpreted within the limits of what was tested.
Source and contact
Study discussed: León-Bravo et al. (2026), “Short-term effects of craniosacral therapy and rhythmic movement training on developmental assessment scores and primitive reflex expression in typically developing children: a randomized controlled trial.” Frontiers in Public Health, 14:1771040. DOI: 10.3389/fpubh.2026.1771040.
Rhythmic Movement Training International
Questions about this response: info@rhythmicmovement.org
