A metamethod analysis of qualitative research methodology in studies of psychotherapists' experiences.

IF 3 1区 心理学 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL
Javier L Rizo, Heidi M Levitt, Zenobia Morrill, Bediha Ipekci
{"title":"A metamethod analysis of qualitative research methodology in studies of psychotherapists' experiences.","authors":"Javier L Rizo, Heidi M Levitt, Zenobia Morrill, Bediha Ipekci","doi":"10.1080/10503307.2025.2530561","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Objective:</b> As the amount of qualitative psychotherapy research has increased, methodological and reporting practices have evolved and changed to reflect trends in the field. We investigated trends by surveying the methodological characteristics of the qualitative research on therapists' experiences conducting psychotherapy prior to the publication of the SQIP methodological integrity framework and APA reporting standards for qualitative research. <b>Methods:</b> We identified articles using PsycINFO and coded features including publication year, reported epistemological perspective, number of participants, research design, and procedural checks. We analyzed trends in 140 studies (published 1985 to2015) across these characteristics using descriptive and exploratory inferential statistics. <b>Results:</b> The number of publications grew substantially. Researchers reported their epistemological stance in approximately a quarter of studies, which was not predictive of article age, number of participants, reports of reflexivity, or credibility checks. Additionally, a larger number of participants were associated with grounded theory designs, whereas fewer were associated with phenomenological studies. Higher numbers of reflexivity and credibility checks were associated with consensual qualitative research. Procedures promoting reflexivity, such as formal reflection and self-description by researchers, increased over time, whereas procedures promoting credibility, such as consensus, decreased. <b>Conclusions:</b> Qualitative psychotherapy research is fast-growing and becoming more reflexive, although researchers should more routinely report features related to methodological integrity.</p>","PeriodicalId":48159,"journal":{"name":"Psychotherapy Research","volume":" ","pages":"1-14"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Psychotherapy Research","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10503307.2025.2530561","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: As the amount of qualitative psychotherapy research has increased, methodological and reporting practices have evolved and changed to reflect trends in the field. We investigated trends by surveying the methodological characteristics of the qualitative research on therapists' experiences conducting psychotherapy prior to the publication of the SQIP methodological integrity framework and APA reporting standards for qualitative research. Methods: We identified articles using PsycINFO and coded features including publication year, reported epistemological perspective, number of participants, research design, and procedural checks. We analyzed trends in 140 studies (published 1985 to2015) across these characteristics using descriptive and exploratory inferential statistics. Results: The number of publications grew substantially. Researchers reported their epistemological stance in approximately a quarter of studies, which was not predictive of article age, number of participants, reports of reflexivity, or credibility checks. Additionally, a larger number of participants were associated with grounded theory designs, whereas fewer were associated with phenomenological studies. Higher numbers of reflexivity and credibility checks were associated with consensual qualitative research. Procedures promoting reflexivity, such as formal reflection and self-description by researchers, increased over time, whereas procedures promoting credibility, such as consensus, decreased. Conclusions: Qualitative psychotherapy research is fast-growing and becoming more reflexive, although researchers should more routinely report features related to methodological integrity.

心理治疗师经验研究中质性研究方法论的元方法分析。
目的:随着定性心理治疗研究数量的增加,方法和报告实践已经演变和改变,以反映该领域的趋势。在SQIP方法完整性框架和APA定性研究报告标准出版之前,我们通过调查治疗师进行心理治疗经验的定性研究的方法特征来调查趋势。方法:我们使用PsycINFO和编码特征识别文章,包括出版年份、报道的认识论观点、参与者数量、研究设计和程序检查。我们使用描述性和探索性推理统计分析了140项研究(发表于1985年至2015年)在这些特征方面的趋势。结果:论文发表数量大幅增长。研究人员在大约四分之一的研究中报告了他们的认识论立场,这与文章年龄、参与者数量、反身性报告或可信度检查无关。此外,更多的参与者与扎根理论设计有关,而与现象学研究有关的参与者较少。较高数量的反身性和可信度检查与共识性定性研究相关。促进反身性的程序,如研究人员的正式反思和自我描述,随着时间的推移而增加,而促进可信度的程序,如共识,则减少。结论:定性心理治疗研究正在快速发展,并且越来越具有反思性,尽管研究人员应该更常规地报告与方法完整性相关的特征。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Psychotherapy Research
Psychotherapy Research PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL-
CiteScore
7.80
自引率
10.30%
发文量
68
期刊介绍: Psychotherapy Research seeks to enhance the development, scientific quality, and social relevance of psychotherapy research and to foster the use of research findings in practice, education, and policy formulation. The Journal publishes reports of original research on all aspects of psychotherapy, including its outcomes, its processes, education of practitioners, and delivery of services. It also publishes methodological, theoretical, and review articles of direct relevance to psychotherapy research. The Journal is addressed to an international, interdisciplinary audience and welcomes submissions dealing with diverse theoretical orientations, treatment modalities.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信