Interpersonal processes in psychodynamic-interpersonal and cognitive behavioral group therapy: A systematic case study of two groups.

Abstract

This mixed method systematic case study applied an interpersonal stage model of the therapeutic process to examine interpersonal processes among a highly adherent Group Psychodynamic-Interpersonal Psychotherapy (GPIP) therapist and a highly adherent Group Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (GCBT) therapist and their groups of binge eating disordered (BED) patients. This is the first case study to apply the interpersonal stage model of psychotherapy to compare GCBT and GPIP methods and the first to apply the model to group therapy. Early-, middle-, and late-stage transcribed video recordings of sequential interactions among therapists and patients in each of these two time-limited group therapies were analyzed with the Structural Analysis of Social Behavior (SASB). We also provide qualitative presentations of the transcripts from each stage as context for the quantitative analyses. BED patients in both groups achieved positive outcomes for binge eating and depression. Consistent with their treatment model, the GPIP therapist was more autonomy-giving, whereas the GCBT therapist was more controlling/directive. The GPIP therapist and her group had high levels of interpersonal complementary interaction sequences in the early stage followed by lower complementarity in the middle stage. The GCBT therapist and her group showed a high-low-high pattern of complementarity across the three stage of therapy. However, overall the GPIP group had higher levels complementarity than the GCBT group. This mixed method case study of group processes based on an interpersonal stage model of psychotherapy suggested specific therapist behaviors in each modality to maximize positive therapeutic interactions at each stage of group therapy.

Mixed methods in psychotherapy research: A review of method(ology) integration in psychotherapy science

“…Thus, rather than interviewing participants afterward or alongside quantitative data collection to answer a broad research question, these researchers (e.g., Grocke et al., ; Herrera‐Mercadal et al., ; Lucre & Corten, ; Tasca et al., ) collected data from participants or sessions in between quantitative data collection. Conversely, Down et al.…”

“…Whereas qualitative and quantitative results were typically presented in individual subsections of the results, two studies contained joint displays of results. Joint displays in these two studies were accomplished in tables that included both qualitative and quantitative data (Neto, Baptista, & Dent‐Brown, b) or in an integrative narrative of the results that brought together qualitative and quantitative findings (Tasca et al., ).…”

“…To go beyond single data studies, many researchers creatively used clinical data, like transcriptions, recorded sessions, and clinical notes (frequency = 22.58%, n = 7) as a qualitative data phase (e.g., Carr et al., ; Iliya, ; Miller‐Graff, Galano, & Graham‐Bermann, ; Neto et al., b; Pinto‐Coelho et al., ; Rosen et al., ; Tasca et al., ). Researchers using these session data demonstrate the flexibility possible with rigorous mixed methods data.…”

“…Thus, rather than interviewing participants afterward or alongside quantitative data collection to answer a broad research question, these researchers (e.g., Grocke et al, 2014;Herrera-Mercadal et al, 2015;Lucre & Corten, 2013;Tasca et al, 2011) collected data from participants or sessions in between quantitative data collection. Conversely, Down et al (2011) collected qualitative data before and after a group intervention, and during the intervention, they collected quantitative outcome data.…”

Complementarity patterns in cognitive therapy for major depressive disorder

“…For example, Tasca et al. () compared the interpersonal process of two group therapies: psychodynamic‐interpersonal psychotherapy (GPIP) and cognitive‐behavioural therapy (GCBT). Complementarity was higher within GPIP and the clinician used more autonomy‐granting mechanisms, such as affirmation.…”