Therapist Interpretations and Client Processes in Three Therapeutic Modalities: Implications for Psychotherapy Integration.

Abstract

This research investigated therapist interpretations and subsequent client actions in 3 therapeutic modalities-client-centered therapy, gestalt/existential therapies, and rational-emotive behavior therapy-by employing the coding system of the consensual qualitative research method (C. E. Hill, B. J. Thompson, & N. E. Williams, 1997). By allowing conceptual categories to emerge from these qualitatively analyzed data, the authors found that each approach had its own specific pattern of interpretation content as well as style of delivering the interpretations. Client reactions to interpretations were mostly positive. The results suggest that interpretation is a common therapeutic element and that different therapies nonetheless accentuate different aspects of interpretation. Implications for psychotherapy integration are offered, and the findings are discussed with reference to theory and clinical practice.

Narrative change in Gloria Films: Comparing various processes of therapeutic innovation

“…focused on the therapist, the main findings showed significant differences between the three therapists, consistent with their theoretical positions (Essig & Russel, 1990;Gazzola & Stalikas, 2004;Hill, Thames, & Rardin, 1979;Moon, 2007;Shostrom & Riley, 1968). According to these studies, Rogers was characterized as non-directive, accepting the experience and meanings of the client without any judgment or prejudice (Moon, 2007).…”

Therapist interventions and client innovative moments in emotion-focused therapy for depression.

“…According to a research review on response modes carried out by Elliott, Greenberg, and Lietaer (2004), most of the studies within the humanistic and experiential modalities used demonstration sessions or one-time interviews, not sessions from different phases of actual therapy. Furthermore, other studies focused less on complete sessions and more on specific in-session moments (such as when humanistic/experiential therapists use interpretation) and how these relate to immediate client changes (e.g., Gazzola & Stalikas, 1997, 2004). Therefore, studies in the use of therapist skills might facilitate the understanding of the therapy processes in these modalities, more specifically in EFT.…”

Draft 19.11.2021. The Role of Interpretation in Fostering the Psychotherapy Process: Evidence from a Single Case Study

“…It evaluates the therapist's interpretative interventions according to five different qualitative variables, called dimensions, which are measured on a nominal (categorical) scale. In line with the literature (Chambers & Bickhard, 2007;Gazzola & Stalikas, 2004;Salvatore & Freda, 2011;Salvatore et al, 2010), the GMI operatively defines the interpretative intervention as "a therapist statement where an innovative meaning is suggested as regards the patient's current framework, where [the] patient's framework is intended as the system of assumptions grounding, constraining and regulating the speaker's way of thinking" (Auletta & Salvatore, 2009, p. 66). Each interpretative intervention is evaluated according to 17 mutually exclusive variables that define the following five dimensions qualitatively describing interpretations (a full description of the dimensions and the categories is given in Table 3): the content dimension pertains to the interpretative issue (representations, defense mechanisms, motives, general way of functioning, drives, or affects) beyond the self, the therapist or other people, and it does not pertain to the past or present moment (such aspects are described through further dimensions); the domain dimension distinguishes whether the interpretation concerns the patient's interpersonal (if it implies the therapist or other people) or intrapsychic life; the time orientation dimension pertains to the temporal reference of the therapist's interpretation, with two categories concerning discrete temporal references (past, present) and two categories concerning the directions of their connection (past-to-present and present-to-past); the dichotomous space frame dimension distinguishes between two interpretative focuses, regardless of their temporal referencethat is, the patient's experience concerning the therapeutic situation (internal) and the experience outside therapy (external); lastly, the style dimension refers to the therapist's modalities of delivering the interpretation and includes three mutually exclusive categories: interpretations can be presented as descriptions of facts, personal beliefs, or something that must be demonstrated.…”

“…Through clinical speech, patients actualize in the psychotherapy setting their own (in)effective modalities to organize experience and clinical interventions (Bucci & Cornell, 2020;Greenberg & Safran, 1989;Moltrecht et al, 2020;Stern, 1997); in this context, the clinical exchange aims to improve patients' access to their own affective appraisal (Greenberg, 2007(Greenberg, , 2021Lecours et al, 2010) as a way to elaborate affective experience and, ultimately, to set in motion new or more adaptive modalities and operative patterns to organize and face life experiences. Access to affects is promoted, among other techniques, by therapists' interpretations (Aron, 1996;Bucci & Cornell, 2020;Etchegoyen, 2005;Kernberg et al, 2008;Levy & Scala, 2012;Silberschatz et al, 1986), which represent cross-theoretical constructs (Ahn & Wampold, 2001;Barkham & Shapiro, 1986;Gazzola & Stalikas, 2004;Gelso et al, 2012;Gibbons et al, 2002;Gilbert & Leahy, 2007;Spiegal & Hill, 1989;Wiser & Goldfried, 1996) that enable the revision of patients' own affective appraisal, and support the elaboration of an (at least partially) different affective positioning toward their life experience Stolorow, 2002;Summers, 2005).…”