心理治疗中过程效率研究的问题。

Acta psychiatrica Belgica Pub Date : 1996-05-01
A E Meyer
{"title":"心理治疗中过程效率研究的问题。","authors":"A E Meyer","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Three areas of psychotherapy research can be delimited of which differential efficiency research promises to be the most fruitful, because it will eventually inform us which interventions with what kind of patient and what kind of problem will be the most constructive. One problem it can solve is the so-called equivalence paradox. This epitheton designates the fact, that in spite of the enormous differences in theory and interventions between the different kinds of psychotherapies, their results are not remarkably divergent. One quite popular hypothesis is that this is due to common factors, commun to any and every kind of psychotherapy. Our results indicate that this explanation is too simplistic because it uses a monosubstance-doses-effect-relationship model and disregards interaction. One other avenue is the relevant events approach. Our examples yield equivocal results. Nevertheless this remains a promising field of investigation. Finally there are time series analyses which are probably most germane to the field of psychotherapies. One illustration with a case of negative psychotherapy outcome is presented. Time series analysis is able to show that the patient changed to a negativistic attitude in the middle of session, whereas the psychoanalyst only changed at the beginning of session 10 respectively in its middle.</p>","PeriodicalId":75415,"journal":{"name":"Acta psychiatrica Belgica","volume":"96 3-4","pages":"117-34"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1996-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Problems of process-efficiency studies in psychotherapy.\",\"authors\":\"A E Meyer\",\"doi\":\"\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Three areas of psychotherapy research can be delimited of which differential efficiency research promises to be the most fruitful, because it will eventually inform us which interventions with what kind of patient and what kind of problem will be the most constructive. One problem it can solve is the so-called equivalence paradox. This epitheton designates the fact, that in spite of the enormous differences in theory and interventions between the different kinds of psychotherapies, their results are not remarkably divergent. One quite popular hypothesis is that this is due to common factors, commun to any and every kind of psychotherapy. Our results indicate that this explanation is too simplistic because it uses a monosubstance-doses-effect-relationship model and disregards interaction. One other avenue is the relevant events approach. Our examples yield equivocal results. Nevertheless this remains a promising field of investigation. Finally there are time series analyses which are probably most germane to the field of psychotherapies. One illustration with a case of negative psychotherapy outcome is presented. Time series analysis is able to show that the patient changed to a negativistic attitude in the middle of session, whereas the psychoanalyst only changed at the beginning of session 10 respectively in its middle.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":75415,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Acta psychiatrica Belgica\",\"volume\":\"96 3-4\",\"pages\":\"117-34\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1996-05-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Acta psychiatrica Belgica\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Acta psychiatrica Belgica","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

心理治疗研究的三个领域可以被划分出来,其中差异效率研究有望取得最丰硕的成果,因为它最终将告诉我们,针对什么样的病人和什么样的问题,哪种干预措施最具建设性。它可以解决的一个问题是所谓的等效悖论。这个词表明了这样一个事实,即尽管不同种类的心理疗法在理论和干预方面存在巨大差异,但它们的结果并没有显著差异。一个非常流行的假设是,这是由共同因素造成的,任何一种心理治疗都有共同因素。我们的结果表明,这种解释过于简单化,因为它使用了单一物质-剂量-效应-关系模型,而忽略了相互作用。另一个途径是相关事件方法。我们的例子得出模棱两可的结果。然而,这仍然是一个有前途的研究领域。最后是时间序列分析,这可能是与心理治疗领域最密切相关的。一个例子与消极的心理治疗结果的情况下提出。时间序列分析能够显示,患者在会议中期转变为消极态度,而精神分析学家仅在会议10开始时分别在会议中期发生变化。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Problems of process-efficiency studies in psychotherapy.

Three areas of psychotherapy research can be delimited of which differential efficiency research promises to be the most fruitful, because it will eventually inform us which interventions with what kind of patient and what kind of problem will be the most constructive. One problem it can solve is the so-called equivalence paradox. This epitheton designates the fact, that in spite of the enormous differences in theory and interventions between the different kinds of psychotherapies, their results are not remarkably divergent. One quite popular hypothesis is that this is due to common factors, commun to any and every kind of psychotherapy. Our results indicate that this explanation is too simplistic because it uses a monosubstance-doses-effect-relationship model and disregards interaction. One other avenue is the relevant events approach. Our examples yield equivocal results. Nevertheless this remains a promising field of investigation. Finally there are time series analyses which are probably most germane to the field of psychotherapies. One illustration with a case of negative psychotherapy outcome is presented. Time series analysis is able to show that the patient changed to a negativistic attitude in the middle of session, whereas the psychoanalyst only changed at the beginning of session 10 respectively in its middle.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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