Therapeutic alliance, modality, and ability to engage with the process of therapy have been the main focus of research into what makes psychotherapy successful. Individuals with complex trauma histories or schizophrenia are suggested to be more difficult to engage and may be less likely to benefit from therapy. This study aimed to track the in-session 'process' of working alliance and emotional processing of trauma memories for individuals with schizophrenia.
The study utilized session recordings from the treatment arm of an open randomized clinical trial investigating trauma-focused cognitive behavioural therapy (TF-CBT) for individuals with schizophrenia (N = 26).
Observer measures of working alliance, emotional processing, and affect arousal were rated at early and late phases of therapy. Correlation analysis was undertaken for process measures. Temporal analysis of expressed emotions was also reported.
Working alliance was established and maintained throughout the therapy; however, agreement on goals reduced at the late phase. The participants appeared to be able to engage in emotional processing, but not to the required level for successful cognitive restructuring.
This study undertook novel exploration of process variables not usually explored in CBT. It is also the first study of process for TF-CBT with individuals with schizophrenia. This complex clinical sample showed no difficulty in engagement; however, they may not be able to fully undertake the cognitive-emotional demands of this type of therapy. Clinical and research implications and potential limitations of these methods are considered.
This sample showed no difficulties engaging with TF-CBT and forming a working alliance. However, the participants may not have achieved a level of active involvement required for successful cognitive restructuring of trauma memories. This discrepancy may relate to the mediating role of both working alliance and cognitive-emotional processing. The results underscore the importance of therapists understanding the relationship between alliance and other process factors which may be implicit in facilitating change.
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 19 September 2017.
All research outputs
#24,228,398
of 34,518,147 outputs
Outputs from Psychology & Psychotherapy: Theory, Research & Practice
#593
of 744 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#191,273
of 299,072 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Psychology & Psychotherapy: Theory, Research & Practice
#12
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,518,147 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 744 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.3. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 299,072 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 12 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
