Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T17:32:54.092Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The development and evaluation of the Depth and Duration of Awareness Coding Scheme (D-DACS)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 October 2018

Sally Higginson  and
Warren Mansell
Sally Higginson
Affiliation:
School of Health Sciences, 2nd Floor Zochonis Building, Oxford Road, University of Manchester, Manchester M13 9PL, United Kingdom
Warren Mansell*
Affiliation:
School of Health Sciences, 2nd Floor Zochonis Building, Oxford Road, University of Manchester, Manchester M13 9PL, United Kingdom
*
*Author for correspondence: Warren Mansell, Reader in Clinical Psychology, CeNTrUM (Centre for New Treatments and Understanding in Mental Health), Division of Psychology and Mental Health, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, 2nd Floor Zochonis Building, Brunswick Street, Manchester M13 9PL, UK (email: [email protected]).
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Recent advances in transdiagnostic cognitive therapy such as Method of Levels therapy have utilized perceptual control theory (PCT). The current study reports the development and preliminary investigations of the psychometric properties of a newly developed coding scheme – the Depth and Duration of Awareness Coding Scheme (D-DACS) – which utilizes PCT to code a client's awareness of their present moment experiences, counterproductive strategies (arbitrary control), goal conflict and higher-level goals. Fifty participants’ first therapy sessions were coded according to the D-DACS. For the purposes of inter-rater reliability analysis, 25% of sessions were co-coded and inter-rater reliability of the D-DACS was found to fall in the good range. Findings for the convergent validity of the D-DACS were mixed with the finding of a significant association between the D-DACS primary indices and a more global and subjective index of awareness as measured by the D-DACS, but a lack of association between the D-DACS primary indices and self-report measures that were somewhat conceptually related. Support for the predictive validity of the D-DACS primary indices in relation to the prediction of change in symptoms for a subset of the sample who returned for a second session (n = 35) was not found. Limitations to the D-DACS as it stands and to the current study are discussed. Considerations for future research that address such limitations are also discussed.

Keywords

codingchange processeschange mechanism psychometric propertiestransdiagnostic
Type
Original Research
Information
the Cognitive Behaviour Therapist , Volume 11 , 2018 , e16
Copyright
Copyright © British Association for Behavioural and Cognitive Psychotherapies 2018 

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

Further reading

Mansell, W, Carey, TA, Tai, S (2012). A Transdiagnostic Approach to CBT Using Method of Levels Therapy: Distinctive Features. Routledge.Google Scholar

References

Alsawy, S, Mansell, W, Carey, TA, McEvoy, P, Tai, SJ (2014). Science and practice of transdiagnostic CBT: a Perceptual Control Theory (PCT) approach. International Journal of Cognitive Therapy 7, 334–359.Google Scholar
Amato, P, Hofferth, SL, Casper, LM (2007). Studying marriage and commitment with survey data. Handbook of Measurement Issues in Family Research (pp. 53–66). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Baumeister, RF, Vohs, KD, Funder, DC (2007). Psychology as the science of self-reports and finger movements: whatever happened to actual behavior? Perspectives on Psychological Science 2, 396–403. doi: 10.1111/j.1745-6916.2007.00051.xGoogle Scholar
Bird, T (2013). An investigation of transdiagnostic processes and interventions in clinical and non-clinical settings. PhD thesis, University of Manchester.Google Scholar
Carey, TA (2006). The Method of Levels: How to do Psychotherapy Without Getting in the Way. Hayward, CA: Living Control Systems Publishing.Google Scholar
Carey, TA (2008). Perceptual control theory and the method of levels: further contributions to a transdiagnostic perspective. International Journal of Cognitive Therapy 1, 237–255.Google Scholar
Carey, TA (2011). Exposure and reorganization: the what and how of effective psychotherapy. Clinical Psychology Review 31, 236–248.Google Scholar
Carey, TA, Carey, M, Mullan, RJ, Spratt, CG, Spratt, MB (2009). Assessing the statistical and personal significance of the method of levels. Behavioural and Cognitive Psychotherapy 37, 311–324.Google Scholar
Carey, TA, Haviland, J, Tai, SJ, Vanags, T, Mansell, W (2016). MindSurf: a pilot study to assess the usability and acceptability of a smartphone app designed to promote contentment, wellbeing, and goal achievement. BMC Psychiatry 16, 442.Google Scholar
Carey, TA, Tai, SJ, Stiles, WB (2013). Effective and efficient: using patient-led appointment scheduling in routine mental health practice in remote Australia. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice 44, 405–414.Google Scholar
Department of Health (2008). Improving access to psychological therapies. Implementation plan: National Guidelines for regional delivery. Available at: http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20130124042312/http://www.dh.gov.uk/prod_consum_dh/groups/dh_digitalassets/@dh/@en/documents/digitalasset/dh_083168.pdfGoogle Scholar
Gaffney, H, Mansell, W, Edwards, R, Wright, J (2014). Manage your life online (MYLO): a pilot trial of a conversational computer-based intervention for problem solving in a student sample. Behavioural and Cognitive Psychotherapy 42, 731–746.Google Scholar
Goldman, RN, Greenberg, LS, Pos, AE (2005). Depth of emotional experience and outcome. Psychotherapy Research 15, 248–260.Google Scholar
Goncalves, MM, Mendes, I, Cruz, G, Ribeiro, PP, Sousa, I, Angus, L, Greenberg, LS (2012). Innovative moments and change in client-centered therapy. Psychotherapy Research 22, 389–401.Google Scholar
Higginson, S (2007). What is psychological change? A qualitative and quantitative investigation from a Perceptual Control Theory approach. Unpublished Masters thesis, University of Manchester.Google Scholar
Higginson, S, Mansell, W (2016a). A systematic review of independent-rater, within session measures of therapeutic change: the importance of awareness and transformation. doi: 10.13140/RG.2.1.3280.9041Google Scholar
Higginson, S, Mansell, W (2016b). The Depth and Duration of Awareness Coding Scheme (D-DACS) Manual. doi: 10.13140/RG.2.1.2494.4725Google Scholar
Hill, CE, Lambert, MJ (2004). Methodological issues in studying psychotherapy processes and outcomes. In Lambert, MJ (ed), Bergin and Garfield's Handbook of Psychotherapy and Behavior Change (5th edn, pp. 84–136). New York: John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
Kazdin, AE (2007). Mediators and mechanisms of change in psychotherapy research. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology 3, 1–27. doi: 10.1146/annurev.clinpsy.3.022806.091432Google Scholar
Kelly, RE (2011). The relationship between internal conflict and well-being: a control theory perspective. PhD thesis, University of Manchester.Google Scholar
Kelly, RE, Lansbergen, M, Samad, M, Carey, TA, Tai, S, Mansell, W (2011, December). Client readiness as a predictor of session-by-session therapeutic change. Paper presented at the British Psychological Society Division of Clinical Psychology Conference, Birmingham, UK.Google Scholar
Kramer, U (2008). Adaptational processes in affective disorders: conceptual, empirical and clinical perspectives. PhD thesis, University of Fribourg, Switzerland.Google Scholar
Kramer, U, Despland, JN, Michel, L, Drapeau, M, De Roten, Y (2010). Change in defense mechanisms and coping over the course of short-term dynamic psychotherapy for adjustment disorder. Journal of Clinical Psychology 66, 1232–1241.Google Scholar
Kroenke, K, Spitzer, RL, Williams, JBW (2001). The PHQ-9: validity of a brief depression severity measure. Journal of General Internal Medicine 16, 606–613. doi: 10.1046/j.1525-1497.2001.016009606.xGoogle Scholar
Landis, JR, Koch, GG (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 33, 159–174.Google Scholar
Lansbergen, M (2011). Pilot evaluation of the method of levels cognitive therapy. Doctor of Clinical Psychology thesis, University of Manchester.Google Scholar
Llewelyn, S, Hardy, G (2001). Process research in understanding and applying psychological therapies. British Journal of Clinical Psychology 40, 1–21. doi: 10.1348/014466501163436Google Scholar
Lutz, W, Hill, CE (2009). Quantitative and qualitative methods for psychotherapy research: Introduction to special section. Psychotherapy Research 19, 369–373. doi: 10.1080/10503300902948053Google Scholar
Mansell, W (2005). Control theory and psychopathology: an integrative approach. Psychology and Psychotherapy – Theory Research and Practice 78, 141–178.Google Scholar
Mansell, W (2012). Working with comorbidity in CBT: using a Transdiagnostic Control Theory Model (TCTM). In Dryden, W (ed), The CBT Handbook. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Marken, RS, Powers, WT (1989). Random-walk chemotaxis: trial and error as a control process. Behavioral Neuroscience 103, 1348–1355.Google Scholar
McConnaughy, EA, Diclemente, CC, Prochaska, JO, Velicer, WF (1989). Stages of change in psychotherapy: a follow-up report. Psychotherapy 26, 494–503. doi: 10.1037/h0085468Google Scholar
McConnaughy, EA, Prochaska, JO, Velicer, WF (1983). Stages of change in psychotherapy – measurement and sample profiles. Psychotherapy – Theory Research and Practice 20, 368–375. doi: 10.1037/h0090198Google Scholar
Morris, L, Mansell, W, McEvoy, P (2016). The Take Control Course: conceptual rationale for the development of a transdiagnostic group for common mental health problems. Frontiers in Psychology 7, 99.Google Scholar
Morris, L, Tai, SJ, Bird, T, Higginson, S, Mansell, W (2017, July). Psychometric properties of the reorganisation of conflict scale in clinical and non-clinical samples: investigating the core process of change. Paper presented at the British Association of Behavioural and Cognitive Psychotherapies Annual Scientific Conference, Manchester, UK.Google Scholar
Powers, WT (1973). Behavior: The Control of Perception. Oxford, UK: Aldine.Google Scholar
Powers, WT (2005). Behavior: The Control of Perception (2nd edn rev. and exp.). New Canaan, CT: Benchmark Press.Google Scholar
Powers, WT (2008). Living Control Systems III: The Fact of Control. New Canaan, CT: Benchmark Publications.Google Scholar
Powers, WT, Clark, RK, McFarland, RL (1960a). A general feedback theory of human behavior. Part I. Perceptual and Motor Skills 11, 309–323.Google Scholar
Powers, WT, Clark, RK, McFarland, RL (1960b). A general feedback theory of human behavior. Part II. Perceptual and Motor Skills 11, 309–323.Google Scholar
Solem, S., Husby, ÅS, Håland, ÅT, Launes, G, Hansen, B, Vogel, PA, Hagen, R. (2016). The University of Rhode Island change assessment as predictor of treatment outcome and dropout in outpatients with obsessive-compulsive disorder treated with exposure and response prevention. Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics 85, 119–120.Google Scholar
Spitzer, RL, Kroenke, K, Williams, JBW, Lowe, B. (2006). A brief measure for assessing generalized anxiety disorder – the GAD-7. Archives of Internal Medicine 166, 1092–1097. doi: 10.1001/archinte.166.10.1092Google Scholar
Tai, SJ (2017). Adapting engagement and therapy to challenging contexts. Symposium presented at the BABCP Annual Scientific Conference, Manchester, July 2017.Google Scholar
Tang, TZ, DeRubeis, RJ, Beberman, R, Pham, T (2005). Cognitive changes, critical sessions, and sudden gains in cognitive-behavioral therapy for depression. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 73, 168–172.Google Scholar
Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.