OBJECTIVE Various approaches to cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) have been shown to be effective for social anxiety disorder. For psychodynamic therapy, evidence for efficacy in this disorder is scant. The authors tested the efficacy of psychodynamic therapy and CBT in social anxiety disorder in a multicenter randomized controlled trial. METHOD In an outpatient setting, 495 patients with social anxiety disorder were randomly assigned to manual-guided CBT (N=209), manual-guided psychodynamic therapy (N=207), or a waiting list condition (N=79). Assessments were made at baseline and at end of treatment. Primary outcome measures were rates of remission and response, based on the Liebowitz Social Anxiety Scale applied by raters blind to group assignment. Several secondary measures were assessed as well. RESULTS Remission rates in the CBT, psychodynamic therapy, and waiting list groups were 36%, 26%, and 9%, respectively. Response rates were 60%, 52%, and 15%, respectively. CBT and psychodynamic therapy were significantly superior to waiting list for both remission and response. CBT was significantly superior to psychodynamic therapy for remission but not for response. Between-group effect sizes for remission and response were small. Secondary outcome measures showed significant differences in favor of CBT for measures of social phobia and interpersonal problems, but not for depression. CONCLUSIONS CBT and psychodynamic therapy were both efficacious in treating social anxiety disorder, but there were significant differences in favor of CBT. For CBT, the response rate was comparable to rates reported in Swedish and German studies in recent years. For psychodynamic therapy, the response rate was comparable to rates reported for pharmacotherapy and cognitive-behavioral group therapy.

CBT and psychodynamic therapy were efficacious in treating social anxiety disorder, in both the short- and long-term, when patients showed continuous improvement. Although in the short-term, intention-to-treat analyses yielded some statistically significant but small differences in favor of CBT in several outcome measures, no differences in outcome were found in the long-term.

Background This article presents key findings of two major empirical studies of psychotherapist and counsellor development. Both aimed to advance knowledge of variations in professional development and better understand the complexity of formative influences. Methodology The Minnesota Study of Therapist and Counsellor Development and the International Study of Development of Psychotherapists (ISDP) combined qualitative and quantitative research. Results In the “Minnesota study,” qualitative analysis of data from 100 psychotherapists (172 interviews) at different experience levels led to formulating five phases of practitioner development: the Novice Student Phase, Experienced Student Phase, Novice Professional Phase, Experienced Professional Phase and Senior Professional Phase. Results were integrated in a model describing three developmental trajectories—Continued development, Exhaustion and Disengagement—suggesting a developmentally sensitive approach to supervision. In the ISDP study, the Development of Psychotherapist Common Core Questionnaire was used to survey approximately 5,000 psychotherapists from countries throughout the world from 1991 to 2003 (currently about 12,000 therapists). Multi‐level quantitative analysis yielded two broad dimensions of therapeutic work experience, Healing Involvement and Stressful Involvement, based on therapists’ clinical skills, difficulties in practice, coping strategies, manner of relating to clients and in‐session feelings. Analysis of therapists’ experiences of current professional development showed two dimensions (Currently Experienced Growth and Currently Experienced Depletion). These were predicted, respectively, by Healing Involvement and Stressful Involvement and in turn predicted different levels of Overall Career Development. Implications Implications for supervison were drawn from the findings of The Phase Model and the Cyclical Trajectories model of the Minnesota‐study, while the ISDP study results were integrated in a Cyclical‐Sequential Model with implications for clinical training, supervision and practice.

No abstract

Psychotherapists are the trained professionals to whom large numbers of individuals in our society turn for help when they experience significant distress in their personal lives. We know a considerable amount about the effectiveness and process of psychotherapy after decades of research, but we still know relatively little about the trained professionals who practice their skills on behalf of those who seek their help. Who are the people who work as psychotherapists? What qualifications and qualities do they have as professionals? What kind of people are they as persons? How do they experience their work? Which of their professional and personal characteristics influence how they work with clients? What impact does the therapists' work have on them, professionally and personally? How do psychotherapists develop? What work-related or personal experiences influence their development, and what impact does their development have on their therapeutic work?These questions have guided the Society for Psychotherapy Research Collaborative Research Network (SPR/CRN) since its inception in 1989, when members of the international Society for Psychotherapy Research began working together to study the development of psychotherapists. The SPR/CRN is a research co-op that consists of colleagues who collaborate voluntarily on projects of mutual interest. Aside from its substantive contributions to knowledge, the SPR/CRN is noteworthy for representing an innovative and perhaps unique model of research organization-one that is independent, self-supporting, and self-governing; that is, free to pursue its own intellectual interests because it does not depend on funds solicited from other sources.Over the past 2 decades, some 70 to 80 doctoral-level colleagues and students in more than two dozen countries have participated in varying degrees as SPR/CRN members for varying lengths of time. They have mostly been clinical researchers with considerable experience as practicing psychotherapists and also trainers and supervisors of therapists. Together they designed a wide-ranging research instrument, made careful translations of it into multiple languages, and used it to collect data from an ever-growing group of professional psychotherapists and counselors (nearly 10,000 so far) in North and South America, Europe, Asia, the Middle East, Oceania, and Africa. Responsibility for coordination and continuity of SPR/CRN research is vested in a steering committee comprising approximately 10 or 12 of the most active and committed members.The Development of Psychotherapists Common Core Questionnaire (DPCCQ) was created to survey the professional and personal experiences of