The impact of process variables on outcomes in a Psychodynamic long term group psychotherapy: A single case study.

Research output: Contribution to conferenceOtherpeer-review

Abstract

Several researches on Group psychotherapy attested the mediating action of some aspects of the group process on the outcome(Martin, Garske & Davis,2000; Tasca, Illing, Ogrodniczuk, Joyce,2009; Burlingame, Mc Clendon & Alonso,2011). This study evaluates the development of the Group process in a semi open, long-term therapeutic group with the aim to identify which specific factors of group therapy (Cohesion, Alliance, and Session Impact) are responsible of the change. The group is composed by 11 patients with DSM I and II Axes diagnosis that have been assessed during 50 session.Outcome Instruments:SCL-90 (Derogatis,1983), OQ-45.2(Lambert, Burlingame,1996;Lo Coco, Prestano, Gullo, Di Stefano, Lambert,2006), DSQ(San Martini, Roma, Sarti, Lingiardi, Bond,2004).Process Instruments: CALPAS(Marmar et al,1989; Gaston & Marmar,1994), GMLCS(Piper et al.,1984), SIS (Elliott,Wexler,1994).Six patients had positive change, and achieved clinical or statistical significance on psychological functioning and symptomatic distress(Improved Group, IG), two had negative changes on the DSQscores, and three had non-significant or non-sufficient changes(Not-yet-Improved Group, NIG).There were significant differences between the subgroups in the process measures (Calpas, GMLCS, SIS). The IG tend to increase the quality of the process during the course of treatment. The NIG correlations between number of session and SIS Goal and Hindering scores showed that for these patients the treatment was less helpful and more hindering over the course of therapy.
Original languageEnglish
Number of pages1
Publication statusPublished - 2012

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'The impact of process variables on outcomes in a Psychodynamic long term group psychotherapy: A single case study.'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this