Measuring Verbal Psychotherapeutic Techniques—A Systematic Review of Intervention Characteristics and Measures

Abstract

Language is one of the most important “tools” of psychotherapists. The working mechanisms of verbal therapeutic techniques, however, are still marginally understood. In part, this is due to the lack of a generally acknowledged typology as well as a gold standard for the assessment of verbal techniques, which limits the possibility of conducting studies focusing this topic. The present study reviews measures used in clinical research which assess directly observable dimensions of verbal interventions in a reliable manner. All measures were evaluated with respect to their theoretical foundation, research goals, assessment modes, and various psychometric properties. A systematic search in databases (PubMed, PsycInfo, PsycArticles, PSYNDEX, Web of Science, Embase) followed by an additional “snowballing” search covering the years 1940–2013 yielded n = 179 publications eligible for review. Within these publications, 34 measures were identified showing great heterogeneity regarding the aspects under study. Only two measures reached the highest psychometric standards and can be recommended for clinical use without any reservation. Central problems include deficiencies in the systematization of techniques as well as their partly ambiguous and inconsistent definitions. To promote this field of research, it will be important to achieve a consensus concerning the terminology, conceptions and measures of verbal interventions.

Interventions of the Psychoanalytic Therapist in the Psychotherapeutic Process of a Patient with Borderline Personality Disorder

“…Authors such as Roussos et al (2010) suggest that the nonspecifi c factors may be the main promoters of change in psychotherapy, and that nonspecifi c factors should be studied in order to fi nd their connections with specifi c factors and, through this, to establish the factors that promote change in psychotherapy. Other scholars such as Gumz, Treese, Marx, Strauss, and Wendt (2015) and Pfammatter and Tschacher (2012) have highlighted that the technique and the common factors cannot be considered independently. The common factors evolve in the context of the therapeutic relationship, which, in turn, is infl uenced to a great extent by the techniques.…”

Wie kann Reden heilen? Zur Sprache in der Psychotherapie

“…Diese verbalen Techniken synoptisch zu integrieren, ist schwierig: Zwar liegen theoretische Systematisierungsversuche vor, diese zeigen allerdings erhebliche definitorische Unschärfen (Gumz et al 2014), was eine präzise Operationalisierung verbaler Techniken erschwert. Folglich existiert in der Forschung eine Vielzahl disparater Erhebungsinstrumente, die identische Konstrukte unterschiedlich definieren, verschiedene Aspekte verbaler Techniken akzentuieren und psychometrischen Gütekriterien zum Teil unzureichend gerecht werden (Gumz et al 2015). Dies trägt zur Heterogenität der Befundlage bei, was eine Evaluation der Effektivität verbaler Techniken verkompliziert.…”

“…Wichtig erscheint es diesbezüglich, zunächst den theoretischen Zugriff auf die "talking cure" zu präzisieren und insbesondere die Aspekte der verbalen Aktivität, der hierdurch adressierten Erlebens-und Erfahrungskonstellationen sowie der beteiligten veränderungsassoziierten Prozesse zu differenzieren (Marx et al 2017). Auf dieser Grundlage erst können adäquate Definitionen und Operationalisierungen relevanter Konstrukte formuliert werden (Gumz et al 2015), die wiederum einen fokussierten, auf quantitative (Gumz et al 2014) und auch qualitative (Buchholz und Kächele 2017;Georgaca und Avdi 2009) Methoden gestützten Forschungsprozess ermöglichen, um somit letztlich zu einem konkreteren Verständnis des spezifischen Beitrags der Sprache im Kontext therapeutischer Veränderungsprozesse zu gelangen.…”

A systematic review of measures of therapist competence in psychodynamic, interpersonal, and/or relational models

“…Many measures and frameworks have been developed to support the assessment of psychotherapeutic competence in various areas of practice, intended for use by researchers to ensure consistency in research trials of therapies, psychotherapists themselves, and/or those who train or supervise them (e.g., Carroll et al ., ; Gumz, Treese, Marx, Strauss, & Wendt, ; Leigh et al ., ; Roth, ; Schinköthe, Altmann, & Wilz, ; Stirman et al ., ).…”