Developmental Couple Therapy for Complex Trauma Survivors: A detailed case study of a manualized, time-limited, psychoanalytically informed treatment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many couples in distress encounter significant barriers to accessing psychoanalytic treatments, which leaves psychoanalysis far out of the reach of many of those who would benefit from its rich and deep clinical processes. This paper will briefly outline Developmental Couple Therapy for Complex Trauma (DCTCT). DCTCT is a manualized, evidence-based, time-limited therapy built upon the psychoanalytic foundations of attachment, emotion regulation, mentalizing, and repetition-enactment. This four-stage model integrates psychoeducation about psychoanalytic concepts such as attachment, emotion regulation, and mentalizing, to help couples learn about these developmental self-capacities prior to a second stage of explicit skills building, a third stage of deeper analytic working through of traumatic memories, challenges with sexuality, and developing attachment security prior to a fourth stage of consolidation. The case of Cheryl and Cat will illustrate the process of DCTCT and show some of the advantages specific to couple therapy.
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".