The Contributions of Emotional Engagement with Trauma Material to Outcome in Two Versions of Emotion Focused Trauma Therapy (EFTT)
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
The present study had two objectives. The first was to examine the contributions of emotional engagement with trauma material to outcome in two versions of EFTT, each employing a different reexperiencing procedure. These procedures are the IC and empathic exploration (EE) of trauma memories with the therapist. The second objective was to investigate the relative predictive validity of different measurement perspectives of emotional engagement to outcome in the two versions of EFTT. Clients were randomly assigned to therapy condition. Alliance quality was measured with client self-reports on the Working Alliance Inventory (WAI; Horvath & Greenberg, 1989). Emotional engagement was measured through observer-ratings of videotaped sessions employing the IC and EE procedure using the Levels of Engagement Scale (LES; Paivio et al., 2001) and client self-reports using the Post Session Questionnaire (PSQ; Paivio, Jarry, Chagigiorgis, Hall, & Ralston, in press). Emotional distress was measured with client self-reported subjective units of distress (SUDS) during IC and EE work. Treatment outcome was measured through 7 self-report questionnaires. In terms of similarities between IC and EE, clients reported moderate levels of engagement, from both observer-rated (LES) and self-reported (PSQ) measurement perspectives, which remained stable over the course of both treatment conditions. Furthermore, client self-reported emotional engagement during IC and EE both contributed to treatment outcome as did alliance quality. Finally, there were no significant associations between complex measures of engagement (LES and PSQ) and simple distress (SUDS) and frequency of participation in IC and EE was not significantly associated with client change. In terms of differences between IC and EE, there was a steady decline in distress (SUDS) during IC from early to late sessions (although not statistically significant), whereas distress peaked during middle therapy sessions containing the EE procedure and then significantly declined. There was an association between observer-ratings (LES) and self-reports (PSQ) of engagement only in the IC. Finally, in the IC condition, alliance quality and self-reported emotional engagement during IC contributed to resolution of abuse issues, only, whereas in the EE condition, alliance quality and clients levels of distress contributed to multiple dimensions of change.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».