Developing Emotion‐Based Case Formulations: A Research‐Informed Method
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: New research-informed methods for case conceptualization that cut across traditional therapy approaches are increasingly popular. This paper presents a trans-theoretical approach to case formulation based on the research observations of emotion. METHODS: The sequential model of emotional processing (Pascual-Leone & Greenberg, 2007) is a process research model that provides concrete markers for therapists to observe the emerging emotional development of their clients. We illustrate how this model can be used by clinicians to track change and provides a 'clinical map,' by which therapist may orient themselves in-session and plan treatment interventions. RESULTS: Emotional processing offers as a trans-theoretical framework for therapists who wish to conduct emotion-based case formulations. First, we present criteria for why this research model translates well into practice. Second, two contrasting case studies are presented to demonstrate the method. CONCLUSIONS: The model bridges research with practice by using client emotion as an axis of integration. Key Practitioner Message Process research on emotion can offer a template for therapists to make case formulations while using a range of treatment approaches. The sequential model of emotional processing provides a 'process map' of concrete markers for therapists to (1) observe the emerging emotional development of their clients, and (2) help therapists develop a treatment plan. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.090 | 0.124 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.019 | 0.003 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".