Bringing Into Presence: Client Experiences of SpeakArt, a Group Therapy for Complex Trauma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This qualitative study explored the experiences of women who completed an art therapy group for the treatment of difficulties related to complex trauma. Increasingly, treatments that address problems with self-organization (emotion regulation, self-concept, and relationship difficulties), in addition to classic symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder, are recommended for individuals with complex trauma histories (e.g., Courtois & Ford, 2016). To date, evidence for the effectiveness of art therapy for complex trauma is limited but promising (e.g., Gantt & Tinnin, 2007; Pifalo, 2006), and process studies are non-existent. No study to date has examined client experiences of art therapy, with the goal of understanding how it is helpful (or not) from the client perspective. The present study aimed to address this gap, through a qualitative investigation of SpeakArt, a 12-week group offered through a hospital-based trauma therapy program. Ten participants completed interviews, conducted after their initial group session, about their goals, expectations, and concerns about the group. A second post-therapy interview invited participants to review a written summary of their initial interview, reflect on their experience of the group overall, and identify personal changes that they attributed to SpeakArt. The post-therapy interviews were analyzed using grounded theory techniques, applied from an interpretive-constructivist stance (Charmaz, 2006; Rennie, 2000). The analysis yielded four conceptual domains, comprising participants experience of art therapy and associated shifts: (1) Negotiating (Un)safeness in the Present; (2) Bringing It Up; (3) Witnessing the Invisible and the Invalidated; and (4) Transferring Transformation. A core category and heuristic model was also developed, describing two participant pathways in the group and a dynamic relationship among the four domains. The core category, Bringing into Presence, refers to processes of integrating old/trauma-related memories and emotions, and creating new meanings and adaptive responses. It is concluded that these integration and creation processes are contingent on experiencing intrapersonal and interpersonal safeness in group, and are mediated by the material, visual, and interactive nature of art-making in a group setting. Bringing into Presence as a concept is discussed and expanded on with reference to literature on integration in trauma recovery, relevant concepts from the psychotherapy process literature, and complex trauma conceptualization.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".