psychotherapy research
Recently Published Documents

Assessment of treatment response in psychotherapies can be undermined by lack of longitudinal measurement invariance (LMI) in symptom self-report inventories, by measurement error, and/or by wrong model assumptions. To understand and compare these threats to validity of outcome assessment in psychotherapy research, we studied LMI, sum scores, and Davidian Curve Item Response Theory models in a naturalistic guided internet psychotherapy treatment register of 2,218 generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) patients and 3,922 depressive disorder (DD) patients (aged ≥16 years). Symptoms were repeatedly assessed by Generalized Anxiety Disorder Assessment-7 (GAD-7) or Beck Depression Inventory. The symptom self-reports adhered to LMI under equivalence testing, suggesting sum scores are reasonable proxies for disorder status. However, the standard LMI assumption of normally distributed latent factors did not hold and inflated treatment response estimates by 0.2 to 0.3 standard deviation units compared with sum scores. Further methodological research on non-normally distributed latent constructs holds promise in advancing LMI and mental health assessment.

Despite advances in psychotherapy research showing an evidence-base for psychodynamic psychotherapy (PDT) in adolescents, developmentally specific treatment characteristics are under-researched. We aimed to identify interaction structures (IS: reciprocal patterns of in-session interactions involving therapist interventions, patient behaviors, and the therapeutic relationship) and assess associations between IS and outcome. The study cohort comprised 43 adolescents (Mage = 13.02 years) with nonclinical, internalizing, and comorbid internalizing–externalizing problems in PDT. A total of 123 sessions from different treatment phases were rated based on the Adolescent Psychotherapy Q-Set (APQ). Outcome was assessed with the Brief Problem Monitor-Youth (BPM-Y) administered repeatedly over the treatment course. Principal component analysis of APQ items resulted in five IS, named “Negative Therapeutic Alliance”, “Demanding Patient, Accommodating Therapist”, “Emotionally Distant Resistant Patient”, “Inexpressive Patient, Inviting Therapist”, and “Exploratory Psychodynamic Technique” (EPT). Multilevel modeling analyses with Bayesian Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) estimations indicated a two-way interaction effect between EPT and problem levels at baseline such that patients with lower problems at baseline showed good outcome in the context of EPT, whereas an inverse relationship was found for patients with higher problems. Findings provide empirical evidence for characteristic components of PDT for adolescents and preliminary answers about who benefits from psychodynamic techniques.

After more than a century of existence, theoretical development, research, and clinical practice within the psychoanalytic movement have consistently demonstrated that psychoanalysis is not a unitary and autonomous discipline. This has been evidenced by the various ways in which psychoanalytic thought and practice have been informed by and have established a dialogue—more or less fruitful—with related disciplines (neurosciences, developmental psychology, psychotherapy research, attachment theory and research, feminism, philosophy). This dialogue has contributed to a better understanding of the functioning of the human psyche, and therefore of the analytic process, informing clinical interventions. In turn, it has enriched research on psychoanalytic practice and process, underlining the fact that research in psychoanalysis is fundamentally about clinical practice. Since its origins, psychoanalysis has made explicit the work on the patient-analyst relationship as the terrain in which the analytic process unfolds. For its part, research in psychotherapy has demonstrated the relevance of the therapeutic relationship for the good development and outcome of any psychotherapeutic process. This supports the argument that research in clinical psychoanalysis should be research on the impact of the analyst interventions on the analyst-patient relationship. In this context, a central element of what happens in the analytic relationship refers to affect communication and therefore, affect regulation, which is manifested in the transferential and counter-transferential processes, as well as in the therapeutic bond. On the other hand, affective regulation is found at the crossroads of etiopathogenesis, complex personality models and psychopathology, allowing the understanding of human functioning and the staging of these configurations in the patient-analyst relationship. In this way, research on affective regulation in the analytic process is proposed as a path that exemplifies interdisciplinary research and scientific pluralism from which psychoanalysis enriches and progresses as a discipline. The case of a line of research on affective regulation in psychoanalytic psychotherapy is illustrated. The need to resort to other disciplines, as well as the translational value of our research and its clinical usefulness, is discussed.

Background Negative or adverse effects of psychological treatments are increasingly a focus of psychotherapy research. Yet, we still know little about the prevalence of these effects. Aims Starting from a representative national sample, the prevalence of negative effects and malpractice was determined in a subsample of individuals reporting psychotherapy currently or during the past 6 years. Method Out of an initial representative sample of 5562 individuals, 244 were determined to have had psychotherapy within the past 6 years. Besides answering questions related to treatment, its effects and the therapists, patients filled out the Negative Effects Questionnaire, items of the Inventory of Negative Effects of Psychotherapy reflecting malpractice and the Helping Alliance Questionnaire, and rated psychotherapeutic changes in different areas. Results Rates of positive changes related to therapy varied between 26.6% (relationship to parents) and 67.7% (improvement in depressed mood). Deteriorations were most commonly related to physical well-being (13.1%), ability to work (13.1%) and vitality (11.1%). Although patients generally reported a positive helping alliance, many of them reported high rates of negative effects (though not always linked to treatment). This was especially true of the experience of unpleasant memories (57.8%), unpleasant feelings (30.3%) and a lack of understanding of the treatment/therapist (19.3/18.4%). Indicators of malpractice were less common, with the exception that 16.8% felt violated by statements of their therapist. Conclusions This study helps to better estimate aspects of negative effects in psychotherapy ranging from deteriorations, specific effects and issues of malpractice that should be replicated and specified in future studies.

In contrast to the fruitful relationship between psychoanalysis/psychoanalysts and the humanities, institutionalized psychoanalysis has been largely resistant to the integration of psychoanalysis with other empirical branches of knowledge (infant observation, psychotherapy research, psychological and neurobiological sciences), as well as clinical ones [primarily cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT)]. Drawing from two decades of theoretical and empirical work on psychopathology, psychotherapy, and psychoanalysis, the author aims to show how a reformulation of object relations theory (RORT) using (neuro-)psychological science may enhance a clinical-psychoanalytic understanding and treatment of suicidal depression, which constitutes one of the most formidable health challenges of our time. Specifically, he rewrote the notion of Melanie Klein positions—primarily the depressive position—using extant knowledge of structure of emotions, the centrality of mental representations of the future (“prospection”) and the toxic nature of criticism-based emotions. This reformulation enables a dialog between clinical psychoanalysis and other therapeutic schools of thought and sheds light on the understanding and treatment of suicidal depression.

The adoption of a pluralistic perspective on research design, processes of data collection and analysis and dissemination of findings, has the potential to enable psychotherapy research to make a more effective contribution to building a just society. A review of the key features of the concept of pluralism is followed by a historical analysis of the ways in which research in counselling, psychotherapy and related disciplines has moved in the direction of a pluralistic position around knowledge creation. Core principles of a pluralistic approach to research are identified and explored in the context of a critical case study of contemporary research into psychotherapy for depression, examples of pluralistically oriented research practices, and analysis of a pluralistic conceptualisation of the nature of evidence. Implications of a pluralistic perspective for research training and practice are discussed. Pluralistic inquiry that emphasises dialogue, collaboration, epistemic justice and the co-existence of multiple truths, creates opportunities for individuals, families and communities from a wide range of backgrounds to co-produce knowledge in ways that support their capacities for active citizenship and involvement in open democratic decision-making. To fulfil these possibilities, it is necessary for psychotherapy research to be oriented towards social goals that are sufficiently relevant to both researchers and co-participants to harness their passion and work together for a common good.

Background: Mentalization processes seem to be of high relevance for social learning and seem important in all psychotherapies. The exact role of mentalization processes in psychotherapy is still unknown. The aim of the present systematic review is to investigate whether mentalization is related to the therapeutic outcome and, if so, whether it has a moderating, mediative, or predictive function. Method: A systematic review with an electronic database search was conducted. A total of 2567 records were identified, and 10 studies were included in the final synthesis. Results: Psychotherapy research is still in an initial phase of examining and understanding the impact of mentalization on psychotherapy outcome. The small number of studies and the executed study designs and statistical analyses indicate the possible role that mentalization has in psychotherapy. Conclusion: Generally, strongly elaborated study designs are needed to identify the role of mentalization in psychotherapy. Mentalization seems to be differently represented in differential treatment approaches. Nevertheless, it should be noted that the patient’s mentalizing capacity seems to be relevant to the psychotherapy process. Psychotherapies should be adapted to this.

The literature on measure translation tends to hold, overtly or covertly, a questionable assumption about the possibility of exact translation and almost completely ignores issues of within language variation. Equally, psychometric methods used to assess cross-cultural validity after translation focus on large sample tests of cross-sectional measurement invariance. Such invariance is often not found and is of dubious pertinence to change/outcome measures usually used in psychotherapy research. We present a sequential process of three substudies using quantitative and qualitative procedures to explore whether an outcome measure needs to be changed when used across language variation. Qualitative data confirmed that an item was not ideal in the new context. However, quantitative exploration showed that, although statistically significant and affected by gender and item order, the impact of changing the item in the overall score was small, allowing retention of the existing Spanish translation. We argue that the myth of perfect translation and over-reliance on large-sample psychometric testing pursuing measurement invariance limit exploration of language effects. We recommend that these be used in the companion of user-based, sequential, mixed-method exploration to support the development of a richer field of understanding of outcomes and change self-report measures across languages and cultures and both across and within languages.