Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-03T04:59:22.270Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Clarification and Assessment of a Method of Psychotherapy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 January 2018

D. P. Goldberg ,
R. F. Hobson ,
G. P. Maguire ,
F. Margison ,
T. O'Dowd ,
M. Osborn  and
S. Moss
D. P. Goldberg*
Affiliation:
Department of Psychiatry, University of Manchester, The University Hospital of South Manchester, West Didsbury, Manchester M20 8LR
R. F. Hobson
Affiliation:
University of Manchester
G. P. Maguire
Affiliation:
University of Manchester
F. Margison
Affiliation:
Department of Psychiatry, Manchester Royal Infirmary
T. O'Dowd
Affiliation:
University of Manchester
M. Osborn
Affiliation:
Department of Psychiatry, Manchester Royal Infirmary
S. Moss
Affiliation:
Department of Psychiatry, University of Manchester
*
∗Correspondence
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

The ‘conversational model’ of psychotherapy was investigated with a view to discovering which behaviours distinguish psychotherapists trained in this method from others, of equal clinical experience. A rating scheme designed to capture the theoretical aspects of the model, and 30 predictions were made concerning behaviours which were expected to distinguish the psychotherapists. Five psychotherapists were matched to five psychiatrists who had not been trained in this method; each doctor took on four patients for therapy, and each patient was seen on five occasions. All interviews were recorded, and excerpts from the recordings rated. Only ten of the 30 predictions were upheld. In ten further predictions, the psychotherapists displayed the appropriate behaviours, but the behaviours were not peculiar to the model, since eclectic psychiatrists also displayed them. Six model behaviours were not practised frequently by the psychotherapists, and four ‘non-model’ behaviours were equally common in either group. The research formed the basis for the preparation of materials to teach psychotherapeutic skills in a more efficient way.

Type
Papers
Information
The British Journal of Psychiatry , Volume 144 , Issue 6 , June 1984 , pp. 567 - 575
Copyright
Copyright © 1984 The Royal College of Psychiatrists 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Cornfield, J. & Tukey, J. W. (1956a) Average values of mean squares in factorials. Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 27, 907–49.Google Scholar
Goldberg, D. P., Cooper, B., Eastwood, M. R., Kedward, H. B. & Shepherd, M. (1970) A standardised psychiatric interview for use in community surveys. British Journal of Preventive and Social Medicine, 24, 18–23.Google Scholar
Hobson, R. F. (1977) A conversational model of psychotherapy. AUTP Newsletter. January, 1977, 14–18.Google Scholar
Hobson, R. F. (1984) The Heart of Psychotherapy. London: Tavistock Publications. In press.Google Scholar
Maguire, G. P., Goldberg, D. P., Hobson, R. F., Margison, F. & Moss, S. (1984). Evaluating the teaching of a method of psychotherapy. British Journal of Psychiatry, 144, 575–80.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Marsden, G., Kalter, N. & Ericson, W. A. (1974) Response Productivity: a methodological problem in constant-analysis studies in psychotherapy. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 42, 2, 224–30.Google Scholar
Schweder, T. & Spjotvoll, E. (1982) Plots of P-values to evaluate many tests simultaneously. Biometrica, 69, 3, 493–502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(Authors listed at end of following paper) Google Scholar
Submit a response

eLetters

No eLetters have been published for this article.