A systematic review and integrative framework of psychotherapy microprocess: Linking the science of psychological interventions with the art of moment-to-moment practice
{"title":"A systematic review and integrative framework of psychotherapy microprocess: Linking the science of psychological interventions with the art of moment-to-moment practice","authors":"Xiaochen Luo , Alytia A. Levendosky","doi":"10.1016/j.cpr.2025.102641","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Despite advancements in psychotherapy research on effectiveness and critical therapy processes, there remains a significant gap between the science and the art of psychotherapy, specifically on how to understand what to do moment-to-moment with each patient. A burgeoning research literature addresses this question by examining psychotherapy microprocesses, which typically referred to within-session changes of therapy processes, aiming to bridge psychotherapy research with clinical practice. In this pre-registered systematic review, we reviewed 86 empirical quantitative studies examining observational psychotherapy microprocesses over 35 years. We extracted 28 microprocess constructs across six categories (affective/emotional, behavioral, cognitive, relational/interpersonal, linguistic, and movement), four key methodological features of operationalizing microprocesses, and three types of research questions that focused on within-session change patterns, dyadic and intra-personal momentary associations, and associations with outcomes/macroprocesses/predictors. The literature demonstrated unique advantages in embracing theoretical plurality, real-world settings, and dyadic influences, while being limited by theoretical and methodological challenges such as the scatteredness in construct operationalizations, limited inclusion of diverse samples/therapy modalities and culture-related constructs, disconnections from theoretically driven hypotheses, and a lack of standard in reporting methodological features. To address these challenges, we propose the Multilevel Integrative Microprocess Model (MIMM), an integrative framework that situates microprocesses within the broader context of psychotherapy research traditionally centered on macro-level processes and outcomes. We conclude by suggesting a future research agenda that provides a checklist for future microprocess studies to enhance theoretical coherence and methodological rigor.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48458,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Psychology Review","volume":"121 ","pages":"Article 102641"},"PeriodicalIF":12.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Psychology Review","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0272735825001084","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Despite advancements in psychotherapy research on effectiveness and critical therapy processes, there remains a significant gap between the science and the art of psychotherapy, specifically on how to understand what to do moment-to-moment with each patient. A burgeoning research literature addresses this question by examining psychotherapy microprocesses, which typically referred to within-session changes of therapy processes, aiming to bridge psychotherapy research with clinical practice. In this pre-registered systematic review, we reviewed 86 empirical quantitative studies examining observational psychotherapy microprocesses over 35 years. We extracted 28 microprocess constructs across six categories (affective/emotional, behavioral, cognitive, relational/interpersonal, linguistic, and movement), four key methodological features of operationalizing microprocesses, and three types of research questions that focused on within-session change patterns, dyadic and intra-personal momentary associations, and associations with outcomes/macroprocesses/predictors. The literature demonstrated unique advantages in embracing theoretical plurality, real-world settings, and dyadic influences, while being limited by theoretical and methodological challenges such as the scatteredness in construct operationalizations, limited inclusion of diverse samples/therapy modalities and culture-related constructs, disconnections from theoretically driven hypotheses, and a lack of standard in reporting methodological features. To address these challenges, we propose the Multilevel Integrative Microprocess Model (MIMM), an integrative framework that situates microprocesses within the broader context of psychotherapy research traditionally centered on macro-level processes and outcomes. We conclude by suggesting a future research agenda that provides a checklist for future microprocess studies to enhance theoretical coherence and methodological rigor.
期刊介绍:
Clinical Psychology Review serves as a platform for substantial reviews addressing pertinent topics in clinical psychology. Encompassing a spectrum of issues, from psychopathology to behavior therapy, cognition to cognitive therapies, behavioral medicine to community mental health, assessment, and child development, the journal seeks cutting-edge papers that significantly contribute to advancing the science and/or practice of clinical psychology.
While maintaining a primary focus on topics directly related to clinical psychology, the journal occasionally features reviews on psychophysiology, learning therapy, experimental psychopathology, and social psychology, provided they demonstrate a clear connection to research or practice in clinical psychology. Integrative literature reviews and summaries of innovative ongoing clinical research programs find a place within its pages. However, reports on individual research studies and theoretical treatises or clinical guides lacking an empirical base are deemed inappropriate for publication.