MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W17495999 · doi:10.1177/070674370505001211

Book Review: Psychotherapy: Attachment Processes in Couple and Family Therapy

2005· article· en· W17495999 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Natasha Demidenko

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Psychiatry · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicAttachment and Relationship Dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAttachment theoryContext (archaeology)PsychologyDistressPsychotherapistFamily therapyRelevance (law)Attachment measuresPsychoanalysisDevelopmental psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Psychotherapy Attachment Processes in Couple and Family Therapy Susan M Johnson, Valerie E Whiffen, editors. New York: The Guilford Press; 2003.411 p. US$42.00. Reviewer rating: Excellent Attachment theory was developed by John Bowlby as a theoretical framework to understand enduring emotional bonds that individuals develop in relation to certain people. It is only within the past 15 years or so that attachment theory has been recognized as a clinically valuable way of understanding significant adult relationships. From this understanding came research that demonstrated the meaningful link between attachment security or insecurity and well-being or distress. This edited text presents a broad look at the benefits and relevance of using an attachment-based framework when working with couples and families, regardless of the clients' ages. Its chapters are self-contained articles written by -experts regarded as leaders in the areas of couples therapy, family therapy, and attachment theory. The text has 5 clear sections. Section 1 addresses the issue of why (and how) attachment theory is relevant for clinical practice with couples and families. Here, the authors point out the universal and evolutionary basis of attachment. They provide readers with a solid foundation in the assumptions underlying attachment theory, offering key definitions outlining secure and insecure forms of attachment, as well as a discussion of the nature of attachment and pair bonding in adults. Further, they put attachment theory into a context that challenges readers to think about the variations in human attachment that may occur over one's lifespan and across cultures. Section 2 introduces readers to clinical interventions that incorporate attachment theory into their model of treatment. Specifically, the authors discuss emotion-focused therapy (EFT) for distressed couples; the value of attachment theory in behavioural interventions; and the use of attachment theory in interventions with children, in adolescents suffering from depression, and in adoptive families. In Sections 3 and 4, the authors expand on the discussion of clinical interventions, using an attachment-based framework. Separate chapters cover intervention with infants and mothers, adolescents and parents, heterosexual and same-sex couples, and older adults. The authors cohesively incorporate the research and theory components of their chapters with clinical illustrations such as case examples, session-specific therapist-client dialogue, and specific interventions. This allows readers to consolidate what they have learned theoretically with what they may see in their daily clinical practice. The authors demonstrate that attachment theory may serve as a valuable guide to clinicians when working with specific clients such as sexual abuse survivors and their partners, individuals with chronic pain and their partners, and women suffering from postpartum depression. …

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.037
Threshold uncertainty score0.123

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0050.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0370.020

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.347
Teacher spread0.328 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Journal of Psychiatry→Same topicAttachment and Relationship Dynamics→French-language works237,207→