Reviews of empirical research on NLP show that NLP contains many factual errors. It did not produce reliable results for the claims for effectiveness made by NLP’ developers and proponents. According to Devilly, NLP is no longer as common as it was in the 1970s and 1980s. Criticisms go beyond the lack of empirical evidence for effectiveness; critics say that NLP has pseudoscientific characteristics, title, concepts and terminology. One example where NLP is used as pseudoscience is to make the teaching of scientific literacy at the professional and university level easier. NLP also appears on peer reviewed expert-consensus based lists of discredited interventions. In research designed to identify the “quack factor” in modern mental health practice, Norcross | display-authors = etal (2006) list NLP as possibly or probably discredited, and in papers reviewing discredited interventions for substance and alcohol abuse, Norcross | display-authors = etal (2010) list NLP in the top ten most discredited, and Glasner-Edwards and Rawson (2010) list NLP as “certainly discredited”.