items regarding patients' behaviors and experiences, therapists' interventions and features of the interaction. In several cases, the Structural Analysis of Social Behavior (SASB), Core Conflictual Relationship Theme (CCRT) or Verbal Elaboration of Affect Scale (GEVA) were employed. We used AAP, AAI, RF, HSCS and self-report measures as outcome measures. The focus of this research project is set on intensive single case studies combining the mentioned process and outcome instruments at various points in time. A number of research questions emerge from the MBWP. Combining process research, broadened and differentiated using single cases, and outcome findings at different points in time, the following questions regarding process and outcome can be considered relevant: How good is the concordance between the analysts' descriptions for the peer reports system for psychotherapy and interview ratings based on the Operationalized Psychodynamic Diagnostic System (OPD-2) (Erhardt et al., 2010)? What correspondence between AAI and AAP assessments in this clinical sample can be found (Hörz et al. in prep.)? Which attachment classification can be found in a patient who takes a good course on the HSCS compared to a patient with a poor course on this scale? How does a patient with secure attachment classification (AAI, AAP) change over time in comparison to a patient with insecure attachment classification or unresolved trauma? What influence do analyst's plan compatibility in the sessions have on the treatment outcome? What are the interrelations between PQS findings and therapy outcome? How much do RF and HSCS results correspond? At which point in time do decisive changes in HSCS take place? Can hints for these changes be found in other instruments, e.g. the Narzissmus-Inventar? Can further changes be found between the end of treatment and follow-up assessment? Another goal of this project is to encourage the discourse about which research methods could be taught in future psychoanalytic training curricula to reduce the gap between scientists and practitioners. Which of the methods are too cumbersome and need too much training, which of the methods can be improved? G$#.1/.\!!
Susanne Hörz-Sagstetter: s.hoerz@psychologische-hochschule.de Wolfgang Mertens: w.mertens@lrz.uni-muenchen.de
4'20&&;443&&32D.2E&&F&&19.3;&&2;.1.40&&GHIJ&&F& LD
Made with FlippingBook Ebook Creator