The frequency of therapeutic alliance ruptures greatly vary in relation to patient pathology. Clinical and empirical literature suggests that patients with personality disorders (PDs) tend to manifest greater problems in the maintenance of the therapeutic alliance than patients characterized by lower levels of personality pathology (Bender, 2005; Lingiardi, Filippucci, & Baiocco, 2005; Smith, Hilsenroth, Fiori, & Bornstein, 2014). Moreover, empirical evidence suggests that patients with PDs, characterized by inflexible patterns of emotional and interpersonal difficulties that could lead to dramatic in-session fluctuations of mental states, invariably pose great challenges to psychotherapists, especially with regard to the negotiation of the therapeutic alliance (Benjamin & Karpiak, 2002; Levy, Beeney, Wasserman, & Clarkin, 2010). The aims of the study was to describe the scale-revision process, to evaluate interrater reliability and scale validity comparing sessions of patients with and without personality disorders (PDs). Hypothesis; Patients with PDs will show a greater number of alliance ruptures and a smaller number of collaborative processes than patients without PD. Method: Three raters evaluated blind a sample of 60 sessions (180 segments; 3,607 narrative units) with 30 patients (15 had a PD diagnosis and 15 had a DSM-5 clinical syndrome diagnosis without PDs). Results: Interrater reliability results ranged from acceptable to excellent and were comparable with the former version. Patients with PDs showed a greater number of alliance ruptures and a smaller number of collaborative processes than patients without PDs. Moreover, therapists presented more negative interventions with the PD sample than in the non-PD group. Conclusions: The results indicate that the CIS–R is a reliable rating system and is useful in both empirical research and clinical assessments.
Assessing alliance ruptures and resolutions in patients with personality disorders / Gentile, Daniela; Condino, V.. - In: MEDITERRANEAN JOURNAL OF CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGY. - ISSN 2282-1619. - ELETTRONICO. - 5(2), suppl. A:(2017), pp. 36-37. (Intervento presentato al convegno XIX National Congress - Italian Psychological Association Clinical and Dynamic Section tenutosi a Torino nel 29 settembre 2017 - 1 ottobre 2017) [10.6092/2282-1619/2017.5.1637].
Assessing alliance ruptures and resolutions in patients with personality disorders
GENTILE, DANIELA;
2017
Abstract
The frequency of therapeutic alliance ruptures greatly vary in relation to patient pathology. Clinical and empirical literature suggests that patients with personality disorders (PDs) tend to manifest greater problems in the maintenance of the therapeutic alliance than patients characterized by lower levels of personality pathology (Bender, 2005; Lingiardi, Filippucci, & Baiocco, 2005; Smith, Hilsenroth, Fiori, & Bornstein, 2014). Moreover, empirical evidence suggests that patients with PDs, characterized by inflexible patterns of emotional and interpersonal difficulties that could lead to dramatic in-session fluctuations of mental states, invariably pose great challenges to psychotherapists, especially with regard to the negotiation of the therapeutic alliance (Benjamin & Karpiak, 2002; Levy, Beeney, Wasserman, & Clarkin, 2010). The aims of the study was to describe the scale-revision process, to evaluate interrater reliability and scale validity comparing sessions of patients with and without personality disorders (PDs). Hypothesis; Patients with PDs will show a greater number of alliance ruptures and a smaller number of collaborative processes than patients without PD. Method: Three raters evaluated blind a sample of 60 sessions (180 segments; 3,607 narrative units) with 30 patients (15 had a PD diagnosis and 15 had a DSM-5 clinical syndrome diagnosis without PDs). Results: Interrater reliability results ranged from acceptable to excellent and were comparable with the former version. Patients with PDs showed a greater number of alliance ruptures and a smaller number of collaborative processes than patients without PDs. Moreover, therapists presented more negative interventions with the PD sample than in the non-PD group. Conclusions: The results indicate that the CIS–R is a reliable rating system and is useful in both empirical research and clinical assessments.File | Dimensione | Formato | |
---|---|---|---|
Gentile_Assessing-alliance.pdf
solo gestori archivio
Tipologia:
Documento in Post-print (versione successiva alla peer review e accettata per la pubblicazione)
Licenza:
Tutti i diritti riservati (All rights reserved)
Dimensione
229.01 kB
Formato
Adobe PDF
|
229.01 kB | Adobe PDF | Contatta l'autore |
I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.