Depth of experiencing and therapeutic alliance: What predicts outcome for whom in emotion‐focused therapy for trauma?
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine the extent to which therapeutic processes - working alliance and depth of experiencing - contributed to outcome. METHOD: Individual differences in these processes were examined at the early and working phases to determine their impact on symptom reduction. An archival data set of N = 42 individuals who underwent emotion-focused therapy for trauma for childhood maltreatment was used to examine the differential quality of client processes throughout treatment. RESULTS: For those who had difficulty forming an alliance early in therapy, alliance scores during the working phase were the best predictor of outcome (β = -.42). This was complemented by a process change of improvement in alliance from the early to working phases (d = 1.0). In contrast, for those who had difficulty engaging in deepened experiencing early in therapy, depth of experiencing in the working phase was the best predictor of outcome (β = -.36). This was complemented by an improvement in depth of experiencing from the early to working phases (d = .69). CONCLUSIONS: The findings of this study suggest that focusing on the process that clients have trouble with early in therapy contributes to the best treatment outcome. PRACTITIONER POINTS: Sometimes early treatment sessions reveal an abundance of one kind of processing but limitations to another, which poses a puzzle for treatment planning. Our findings suggest that within the first four sessions, therapists could develop tailored treatments based on the relative presence or absence of critical therapeutic changes processes. When it becomes evident that therapy is progressing with a weaker alliance between client and therapist, therapists should redouble their efforts in alliance-building. However, when therapy is developing in a fashion that lacks deep emotional experiencing on the part of the client, treatment efforts should aim to facilitate a richer exploration of moment-by-moment experience. As such, our findings suggest relying on the existing processing strengths within a dyad (e.g., emphasis on an already strong relationships, or augmenting an existing aptitude for deeper experiencing) while shortcomings exist in another kind of process is not optimal responding. Therapists should focus their work on the process that clients have trouble with early in therapy to facilitate the best treatment outcome.
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 | 0,005 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 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 ».