both better classical interventions and a more relational attitude, reducing the contrast between those theoretical and clinical models that stress the therapeutic relevance of an explorative work on one hand, and those one which stress the therapeutic relevance of the patient-therapist emotional relationship. Moreover, in these two last studies, we have tried to bridge the gap between classical clinical case presentation and empirical assessment of patient and therapies using data derived by both the sources. Finally, the last report, written by Di Giuseppe, Perry, Petraglia, Janzen, and Lingiardi (2014) is focused on the need to provide clinicians with a reliable and valid measure for detecting patient defense mechanisms “inside psychotherapy.” To avoid the limitations of existing methods, we designed a Q-sort based on the theoretical definitions and criteria of the Defense Mechanisms Rating Scales (DMRS-Q), but one that does not require transcripts of clinical interviews or sessions, and may be applied without specific training on defenses. The DMRS-Q is sensitive to changes in psychotherapy and its scores correlate significantly with various aspects of mental functioning, making it potentially available for the psychotherapy process and outcome research as well. We report the results of using the DMRS-Q on a systematic single case study with the aim of detecting changes in defense mechanisms during a long-term psychodynamic psychotherapy. The DMRS-Q reveals change both in quantitative scores and in the literary Defensive Profile Narrative. @)15-1.*$#! The aims of the first two studies were to show how it is possible and useful to bridge the gap between the classical descriptions of the clinical cases developed from the perspective of the therapists and their empirical assessment with well validated dynamic empirical tools. This integrative strategy may have several advatages: clinically sensitive empirical tools may help the therapist to have a more precise picture of what happens in the therapeutic process and how the process affects – or do not affect – patiens; on the other hand, nuanced clinical descriptions may help the researchers to identify relevant dimensions of psychopatgology and psychotherapy yet uninvestigated or underinvestigated from an empirical perspective. In the other two studies, which are part of a research project that will be completed in 2015, we have expanded this strategy applying it to a larger sample of recorded therapies with both good and poor outcomes. Our goals are identifying the process features of effective psychoanalyses and to outline diagnostic and therapeutic factors that can help us to identify, since the first month of treatment, the analyses that seem not to proceede weel. The fifth study illustrated a new reliable and valid measure for detecting patient defense mechanisms “inside psychotherapy”; the DMRS-Q is used in the context of a systematic single case. G$#.1/.\!!
Prof. Vittorio Lingiardi, Department of Dynamic and Clinical Psychology, “Sapienza” University of Rome. Via degli Apuli 1, 00185, Rome. vittorio.lingiardi@uniroma1.it
Dr. Francesco Gazzillo, Department of Dynamic and Clinical Psychology, “Sapienza” University of Rome. Via degli Apuli 1, 00185, Rome. francesco.gazzillo@uniroma1.it
4'20&&;443&&32D.2E&&F&&19.3;&&2;.1.40&&GHIJ&&F& PQC
Made with FlippingBook HTML5