MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3210969480

Bringing Into Presence: Client Experiences of SpeakArt, a Group Therapy for Complex Trauma

2021· dissertation· en· W3210969480 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Christianne Macaulay

Bibliographic record

VenueYork University Digital Library (York University) · 2021
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCounseling, Therapy, and Family Dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsGroup psychotherapyPsychotherapistPsychologyMedicine
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.031

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0120.013
Scholarly communication0.0060.004
Open science0.0030.010
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.215 · 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 designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations2
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueYork University Digital Library (York University)Same topicCounseling, Therapy, and Family DynamicsFrench-language works237,207