CLINICAL HYPNOTHERPY

Clinical Hypnotherpy

Clinical Hypnotherpy

There is an ongoing argument about what constituents of psychotherapy lead to benefit. Cognitive behavioural treatment (CBT) and psychodynamic treatments, encompassing psychoanalysis, are often viewed by their proponents as constituting very distinct methods of working with individuals, and yet there is reason to question such allegations of different mechanisms of activity (Frank, 1973). Recent studies (Leichsenring & Leibing, 2003; Svartberg, Stiles, & Seltzer, 2004) have shown almost similar conclusions from the two techniques (with solid evidence of advantage to patients). The Svartberg et al. study is especially notable because of the care with which each technique was conveyed out and assessed, so that confidence may be placed in the value of both treatments and their differentiation from each other. Yet the differences in method between these two modalities do not so apparently correlate with differing outcomes (e.g., Gaston, Thompson, Gallagher, Cournoyer, & Gagnon, 1998).

Jones, Pulos, and Ablon (Jones & Pulos, 1993; Ablon & Jones, 1998) approached this topic by considering psychodynamic components in both CBT and dynamic treatments, correlating the degree of benefit with the degree that the treatments displayed clues of psychodynamic and CBT features. They discovered that the degree of advantage correlated with the presence of psychodynamic features in both assemblies, and not with the degree of presence of CBT features. Some of Svartberg et al.'s outcome (2004) partially support this benefit in long-term benefit of psychodynamic method, as do the findings of Grande et al. (2003). Aresidual adversity has been the adversity considering both adherence and competence (Barber, Liese, & Abrams, 2003) or value of intervention. The measurement of value has especially been awkward, so that most levels for the assessment of both kinds of therapy simply don't assess quality or competence (e.g. Gaston et al. 1998; Trijsburg, Lietaer, Colijn, Abrahamse, Joosten, & Duivenvoorden, 2004). However, competence is assessed by the evaluation instrument evolved for cognitive analytic treatment (Bennett & Parrys, 2004), showing that the need for such measures is increasingly being met.

Aassembly of psychoanalysts mostly from New York have evolved a methodology for assessing psychodynamic (or psychoanalytic) characteristics in treatments (Waldron et al. 2004a, 2004b). The equipment, the Analytic method levels or APS, is suitable for the study of psychodynamic characteristics of any psychotherapy. Therefore, the APS study group determined to assess the psychodynamic characteristics of some cognitive treatments assembled and studied by the study assembly under the authority ofC. Perry and B. Robertson in Montreal (described in this topic (Trijsburg, Semeniuk & Perry 2004) The following report inserts the APS, and presents the outcomes of applying the APS to two cognitive behavioral treatments and a agreed psychodynamic treatment. Each treatment was restricted to twenty sessions.

Developing a Set of levels Assessing Psychodynamic Features

In 1985, a small assembly of psychotherapists in New York decided to study tape-recorded psychoanalyses, in alignment to study psychoanalytic work systematically, rather than to depend on described clinical observations and one-by-one case vignettes. Over the years, the group formulated variables that consider the psychoanalyst's or psychotherapist=s work, the ...