Therapeutic alliance rupture and resolution in a brief psychiatric treatment for borderline personality disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background The focus of this case study was to explore the development of the therapeutic alliance in relation to alliance rupture and resolution and the effect of motive‐focussed psychotherapeutic techniques on this process in the treatment of borderline personality disorder (BPD). Methods Therapeutic alliance rupture and resolution processes were analysed in relation to outcomes over the course of a 10 week, short‐term generalist psychiatric treatment for BPD in two patients, hereby referred to as Clara and Rebecca. Clara received treatment in the form of good psychiatric management (GPM) with the addition of motive‐oriented therapeutic relationship (MOTR) techniques. Rebecca received treatment in the form of GPM. Results Both patients experienced a clinically significant reduction in symptoms. Ruptures and resolution processes occurred at low frequencies in Clara's treatment, while ruptures and resolution processes were numerous in Rebecca's treatment. The focus in Clara's treatment was on rupture prevention because of the added presence of MOTR techniques, while the focus in Rebecca's treatment was on rupture identification and resolution. Discussion Results support the hypothesis that symptom reduction was achieved through two distinct pathways of change as a function of the treatment condition, which suggests the potential presence of multiple effective psychotherapeutic techniques for alliance development. Limitations of this study and clinical implications for the treatment of BPD in psychotherapy, with a special focus on the therapeutic alliance, are discussed.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".