Una psicoanalisi empiricamente supportata: il caso di Giovanna

Psychoanalysts have long relied on the case study method to support the validity of their theoretical hypotheses and clinical techniques and the efficacy of their treatments. However, imitations of the case study method have become increasingly salient as the medical-scientific community and policymakers have increasingly emphasized the need for empirical data. This article describes the progression of an analysis from the perspective of both the treating analyst and an independent research team using empirical methods to study verbatim session transcripts. Empirical measures include the Shedler-Westen Assessment Procedure-200 (Westen & Shedler, 1999a, b; Shedler & Westen, 2006), the Defense Mechanism Rating Scale (Perry, 1990a) and the Analytic Process Scales (Waldron, Scharf, Crouse, Firestein, & Burton, 2004, and Waldron, Scharf, Hurst, et al., 2004). The article llustrates one way in which clinical and empirical methods can complement each other synergistically and lead to a deeper and more precise understanding of analytic process and psychological change.

Questo articolo descrive l’andamento di una psicoanalisi sia dalla prospettiva dell’analista che ha condotto il trattamento sia da quella di un gruppo di ricerca indipendente che ha utilizzato degli strumenti empirici per studiare i trascritti delle sedute terapeutiche. Questi strumenti includono la Shedler-Westen Assessment Procedure-200, la Defense Mechanisms Rating Scale e le Analytic Process Scales. L’articolo illustra uno modi in cui il metodo empirico e quello clinico possono completarsi a vicenda, e portare a una comprensione più profonda e precisa sia del processo analitico sia del cambiamento psicologico.