The aim of this article is to assess the difference in the analytic processes between two patients with similar personality profiles, who were in analysis during the same time, by two analysts with similar training and working in a similar setting. We explored patients' personality and changes with the Global Assessment of Functioning Scale (GAF; APA, 2000) and the Shedler-Westen Assessment Procedure-200 (SWAP-200; Westen & Shedler, 1999a, 1999b) applied by two pairs of independent raters in 16 sessions. In addition, we assessed therapeutic processes with the Analytic Process Scales (APS; Waldron, Scharf, Hurst, Firestein, & Burton, 2004b) and the Dynamic Interaction Scales (DIS; Waldron, Gazzillo, Genova, Lingiardi, 2013) applied by three independent raters to 20 sessions, as well as the Helping Alliance Rating Scale (HAR; Luborsky, Crits-Cristoph, Alexander, Margolis, & Cohen, 1983) applied to eight sessions from the beginning of each therapy. Our results showed striking differences between the outcomes of these two psychoanalyses that are paralleled by differences in their therapeutic process. We provide verbatim clinical interactions to illustrate these differences and explore the potential implications of these findings. © 2014 American Psychological Association.

An empirical investigation of analytic process: Contrasting a good and poor outcome case

Genova F.;
2014-01-01

Abstract

The aim of this article is to assess the difference in the analytic processes between two patients with similar personality profiles, who were in analysis during the same time, by two analysts with similar training and working in a similar setting. We explored patients' personality and changes with the Global Assessment of Functioning Scale (GAF; APA, 2000) and the Shedler-Westen Assessment Procedure-200 (SWAP-200; Westen & Shedler, 1999a, 1999b) applied by two pairs of independent raters in 16 sessions. In addition, we assessed therapeutic processes with the Analytic Process Scales (APS; Waldron, Scharf, Hurst, Firestein, & Burton, 2004b) and the Dynamic Interaction Scales (DIS; Waldron, Gazzillo, Genova, Lingiardi, 2013) applied by three independent raters to 20 sessions, as well as the Helping Alliance Rating Scale (HAR; Luborsky, Crits-Cristoph, Alexander, Margolis, & Cohen, 1983) applied to eight sessions from the beginning of each therapy. Our results showed striking differences between the outcomes of these two psychoanalyses that are paralleled by differences in their therapeutic process. We provide verbatim clinical interactions to illustrate these differences and explore the potential implications of these findings. © 2014 American Psychological Association.
2014
Analytic process
Analytic process scales
Dynamic interaction scales
Outcomes
Patients' personality
Shedler-Westen assessment procedure
Adult
Evidence-Based Medicine
Female
Humans
Observer Variation
Personality
Personality Assessment
Personality Disorders
Psychiatric Status Rating Scales
Psychometrics
Psychotherapy
Psychodynamic
Reproducibility of Results
Self Concept
Transference
Psychology
Treatment Outcome
Young Adult
Professional-Patient Relations
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
An_Empirical_Investigation_of_Analytic_P.pdf

non disponibili

Licenza: NON PUBBLICO - Accesso privato/ristretto
Dimensione 901.31 kB
Formato Adobe PDF
901.31 kB Adobe PDF   Visualizza/Apri   Richiedi una copia

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14092/5255
 Attenzione

Attenzione! I dati visualizzati non sono stati sottoposti a validazione da parte dell'ateneo

Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
social impact