Retraction of Marks et al. (2019).

IF 4.3 3区 材料科学 Q1 ENGINEERING, ELECTRICAL & ELECTRONIC
{"title":"Retraction of Marks et al. (2019).","authors":"","doi":"10.1037/cou0000699","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Reports the retraction of \"Secrets in psychotherapy: For better or worse\" by Ellen C. Marks, Clara E. Hill and Dennis M. Kivlighan Jr. (<i>Journal of Counseling Psychology</i>, 2019[Jan], Vol 66[1], 70-82). The following article is being retracted (https://doi.org/10.1037/cou0000311). This retraction is at the request of coauthors Kivlighan and Hill after the results of an investigation by the University of Maryland Institutional Review Board (IRB). The IRB found that the study included data from between one and four therapy clients of the Maryland Psychotherapy Clinic and Research Laboratory (MPCRL) who either had not been asked to provide consent or had withdrawn consent for their data to be included in the research. Marks was not responsible for obtaining and verifying participant consent but agreed to the retraction of this article. (The following abstract of the original article appeared in record 2018-49842-001.) We investigated how concealment and disclosure of secrets, two related but distinct processes, unfolded over the course of open-ended therapy for 39 clients and 9 therapists, using hierarchical linear modeling to identify longitudinal patterns and investigate relationships with working alliance and session quality. Results indicated that over the course of therapy, 85% of clients disclosed at least one secret and 41% concealed at least one secret, with 18% of sessions including a disclosure and 4% of sessions including concealment. Over time, clients were less likely to disclose secrets, and the secrets they chose to conceal were rated as less significant. Clients rated the working alliance lower after sessions when they disclosed secrets versus when they did not disclose, although the working alliance was not rated as poorly when the disclosed secrets were viewed as significant. Clients rated session quality higher after sessions when they disclosed secrets versus when they did not disclose, particularly when they disclosed preoccupying secrets. Clients tended to feel neutral or positive about their disclosures. Implications for practice and research are discussed. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":3,"journal":{"name":"ACS Applied Electronic Materials","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ACS Applied Electronic Materials","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/cou0000699","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"材料科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, ELECTRICAL & ELECTRONIC","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Reports the retraction of "Secrets in psychotherapy: For better or worse" by Ellen C. Marks, Clara E. Hill and Dennis M. Kivlighan Jr. (Journal of Counseling Psychology, 2019[Jan], Vol 66[1], 70-82). The following article is being retracted (https://doi.org/10.1037/cou0000311). This retraction is at the request of coauthors Kivlighan and Hill after the results of an investigation by the University of Maryland Institutional Review Board (IRB). The IRB found that the study included data from between one and four therapy clients of the Maryland Psychotherapy Clinic and Research Laboratory (MPCRL) who either had not been asked to provide consent or had withdrawn consent for their data to be included in the research. Marks was not responsible for obtaining and verifying participant consent but agreed to the retraction of this article. (The following abstract of the original article appeared in record 2018-49842-001.) We investigated how concealment and disclosure of secrets, two related but distinct processes, unfolded over the course of open-ended therapy for 39 clients and 9 therapists, using hierarchical linear modeling to identify longitudinal patterns and investigate relationships with working alliance and session quality. Results indicated that over the course of therapy, 85% of clients disclosed at least one secret and 41% concealed at least one secret, with 18% of sessions including a disclosure and 4% of sessions including concealment. Over time, clients were less likely to disclose secrets, and the secrets they chose to conceal were rated as less significant. Clients rated the working alliance lower after sessions when they disclosed secrets versus when they did not disclose, although the working alliance was not rated as poorly when the disclosed secrets were viewed as significant. Clients rated session quality higher after sessions when they disclosed secrets versus when they did not disclose, particularly when they disclosed preoccupying secrets. Clients tended to feel neutral or positive about their disclosures. Implications for practice and research are discussed. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

Marks等人的撤回(2019)。
报道了Ellen C.Marks、Clara E.Hill和Dennis M.Kivlighan Jr.的“心理治疗中的秘密:无论好坏”的撤回(《咨询心理学杂志》,2019年1月,第66卷[1],70-82)。以下文章正在收回(https://doi.org/10.1037/cou0000311)。在马里兰大学机构审查委员会(IRB)的调查结果出来后,应合著者Kivlighan和Hill的要求撤回了这一声明。IRB发现,该研究包括来自马里兰州心理治疗诊所和研究实验室(MPCRL)的一到四名治疗客户的数据,这些客户要么没有被要求提供同意书,要么撤回了将其数据纳入研究的同意书。Marks不负责获得和核实参与者的同意,但同意撤回本文。(以下原始文章摘要出现在记录2018-49842-001中。)我们调查了在39名客户和9名治疗师的开放式治疗过程中,秘密的隐瞒和披露这两个相关但不同的过程是如何展开的,使用层次线性建模来识别纵向模式,并研究与工作联盟和会话质量的关系。结果表明,在治疗过程中,85%的客户至少披露了一个秘密,41%的客户隐瞒了至少一个秘密。18%的疗程包括披露,4%的疗程包括隐瞒。随着时间的推移,客户不太可能披露秘密,他们选择隐瞒的秘密也被评为不那么重要。客户在会议结束后披露秘密时对工作联盟的评价低于未披露秘密时,尽管当披露的秘密被视为重要时,工作联盟并不被评为差。当客户在会议结束后披露秘密时,他们对会议质量的评价高于不披露时,尤其是当他们披露了最重要的秘密时。客户往往对自己的披露感到中立或积极。讨论了对实践和研究的启示。(PsycInfo数据库记录(c)2023 APA,保留所有权利)。
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
CiteScore
7.20
自引率
4.30%
发文量
567
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信