Process research in understanding and applying psychological therapies

Llewelyn, Susan; Hardy, Gillian E.

doi:10.1348/014466501163436

Cited by 65 publications

(46 citation statements)

References 61 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In addition to client characteristics influencing therapist behaviors, one would expect that therapist characteristics such as theoretical orientation, personal distress, interpersonal skills, or personality characteristics should also influence therapists' insession behaviors (Llewelyn & Hardy, 2001). Bohart et al's review (2002) found several therapist characteristics, such as cognitive complexity and openness to conflictual feelings, were related to in session empathy in adult outpatient treatment.…”

Section: Therapist Pretreatment Characteristicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Theoretical Model of Common Process Factors in Youth and Family Therapy

Karver

Handelsman

Fields

et al. 2005

Ment Health Serv Res

181

172

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recently there has been an increasing emphasis in the youth and family mental health treatment literature on the use of empirically supported treatments (ESTs). In contrast there has been scant attention paid to more universal aspects of the therapy process that may have even greater impact upon therapy outcomes. It is likely that the success of the techniques proposed by ESTs may depend on the presence of common process factors. In this article, the authors explore the status of common process factors research in the youth and family therapy literature, and propose a theoretical model linking specific therapeutic relationship variables and treatment outcomes for children and adolescents. This model is intended to guide synthesis of the empirical evidence for common process factors in youth and family treatment and to stimulate future research on common process factors.

show abstract

Section: Therapist Pretreatment Characteristicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Theoretical Model of Common Process Factors in Youth and Family Therapy

Karver

Handelsman

Fields

et al. 2005

Ment Health Serv Res

181

172

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It is assumed that more of a process phenomenon will produce better therapeutic outcomes. However, such an assumption is dubious in many research contexts [17]. For instance, it is not appropriate when studying the mutual influence of therapists and patients during sessions, which concerns how the probability of certain behaviors on the part of one of them relates to the probability of certain subsequent behaviors on the part of the other.…”

Section: Limitations Of the Multi-level Approachmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…One may speculate that patients' belief in and agreement to such procedures are less influenced by symptom variations than is their agreement to less standardized and clearly defined procedures. Also the possibly lesser focus on the bonding and affective elements of the relationship in our therapies may have influenced the results [17].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Need to Study Within-Person Processes in Psychotherapy: A Discussion of Alliance Studies

Hoffart¹

2014

SOJP

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The typical alliance data, collected once early in therapy, or occasionally during therapy, are poorly suited for evaluating within-person processes [9]. Only repeated measures data allow for the proper disaggregation of between-person and withinperson effects [9,10]. When a set of measures is collected at a single point of time from multiple individuals, the resulting data provide information only about between-person relationships. In contrast, when a set of measures are collected at multiple points in time from multiple individuals, the resulting data contain information about both between-person and withinperson differences. Such data must be carefully specified to avoid confounding the two sources of variability.A disaggregation of the between-person and within-person variance components of a predictor not only allows the study of within-person processes separated from between-person effects, but also is able to examine cross-level interactions of betweenand within-person effects. For instance, the effect of reporting more alliance than expected for a particular patient may matter more for patients who have lower alliance in general. When the general (between-person) level of bond is low, for example when the patient has low trust that the therapist wants the best for him/her and is therefore preoccupied with this issue, a certain increase of this trust in a particular session might be a valued event with an immediate effect on symptoms. On the other hand, when the patient's trust is high already and not an issue for him/ her, the same increase would probably have less consequences.So far, the ability to separate these effects has not been fully capitalized upon in alliance research. Notable exceptions are the studies of Tasca and Lampard [1] and Falkenström et al.[2] and our own study Hoffart et al. [3]. The purpose of the present short communication is to present and discuss these studies, with particular emphasis on our own study.

show abstract

“…In terms of measures available, there are numerous texts summarizing methodological issues in outcome measurement (Hill & Lambert, 2004), specific outcome measures (Maruish, 1999(Maruish, , 2001, and approaches to outcome evaluation (Speer, 1998). There is a parallel literature relating to process measures in terms of methodological issues (Hill & Lambert, 2004;Llewelyn & Hardy, 2001) and specific measures (Greenberg & Pinsoff, 1986;Hill et al, 1994). Regardless of the specific measure used, a key issue is that of retaining meaning.…”

Section: The Role Of Measurementmentioning

confidence: 99%