Display options
Share it on

Res Psychother. 2019 Jul 30;22(2):354. doi: 10.4081/ripppo.2019.354. eCollection 2019 Aug 09.

[No title available]

Research in psychotherapy (Milano)

Petr Doležal, Michal Čevelíček, Tomáš Řiháček, Jan Roubal, Roman Hytych, Lucia Ukropová

Affiliations

  1. Centre for Psychotherapy Research, Department of Psychology, Faculty of Social Studies, Masaryk University, Brno, Czech Republic.

PMID: 32913795 PMCID: PMC7451337 DOI: 10.4081/ripppo.2019.354

Abstract

The present case study aims to explore the unfolding of the working alliance in a case that ended with the client dropping out of psychotherapy, unilaterally cutting off her contact with the therapist. However, both quantitative and qualitative outcome assessments strongly suggested that. An analysis of session transcripts, the Client Change Interview, and the Interpersonal Process Recall interviews for three selected sessions was used to analyze the development of the working alliance and its contribution to the dropout. This case study illustrates how the working alliance is constructed differently during the different phases of the therapeutic process. Specifically, the fruitful problem-solving in the first part of psychotherapy helped the client to improve her functioning. Yet this intervention seemed to exhaust its potential over time, and later the dyad had trouble finding another useful mode of interaction due to the interpersonal context, leading to more serious ruptures and, eventually, to the dropout. The findings are discussed in terms of therapist responsiveness and of its role in the continuous negotiation of the working alliance.

©Copyright: the Author(s), 2019.

Keywords: Depressive disorder; Dropout; Evidence-based case study; Responsiveness; Working alliance

Conflict of interest statement

Conflict of interest: the authors declare no potential conflict of interest.

References

  1. Clin Psychol Rev. 2003 Feb;23(1):1-33 - PubMed
  2. J Clin Psychol. 2000 Feb;56(2):233-43 - PubMed
  3. Br J Clin Psychol. 1988 Sep;27(3):223-37 - PubMed
  4. Psychotherapy (Chic). 2010 Dec;47(4):427-41 - PubMed
  5. Clin Psychol Psychother. 2015 Jul-Aug;22(4):328-45 - PubMed
  6. Psychotherapy (Chic). 2007 Dec;44(4):371-7 - PubMed
  7. J Consult Clin Psychol. 2007 Dec;75(6):842-52 - PubMed
  8. Behav Ther. 2016 Nov;47(6):966-980 - PubMed
  9. Psychother Res. 2008 Mar;18(2):225-36 - PubMed
  10. Psychotherapy (Chic). 2011 Mar;48(1):9-16 - PubMed
  11. Psychotherapy (Chic). 2018 Dec;55(4):316-340 - PubMed
  12. Psychother Res. 2018 Jul;28(4):560-570 - PubMed
  13. Am Psychol. 2015 Nov;70(8):747-57 - PubMed
  14. Psychotherapy (Chic). 2006 Fall;43(3):286-91 - PubMed
  15. J Affect Disord. 2014;167:112-7 - PubMed
  16. J Consult Clin Psychol. 1991 Feb;59(1):12-9 - PubMed
  17. Am J Psychiatry. 2006 Jan;163(1):148-50 - PubMed
  18. Clin Psychol Rev. 2016 Dec;50:95-107 - PubMed
  19. Psychother Res. 2017 Sep;27(5):620-641 - PubMed
  20. CMAJ. 2012 Feb 21;184(3):E191-6 - PubMed
  21. J Clin Psychol. 2017 Nov;73(11):1543-1555 - PubMed
  22. Psychother Res. 2013;23(4):394-418 - PubMed
  23. Psychother Psychosom. 1999;68(4):199-206 - PubMed
  24. Psychotherapy (Chic). 2016 Sep;53(3):268-72 - PubMed
  25. J Consult Clin Psychol. 2012 Aug;80(4):547-59 - PubMed
  26. Psychotherapy (Chic). 2009 Jun;46(2):233-48 - PubMed
  27. J Clin Psychol. 2011 Feb;67(2):143-54 - PubMed
  28. Psychotherapy (Chic). 2010 Dec;47(4):637-45 - PubMed
  29. Psychotherapy (Chic). 2016 Mar;53(1):78-89 - PubMed
  30. Clin Psychol Psychother. 2016 Jan-Feb;23(1):87-95 - PubMed
  31. Psychol Psychother. 2010 Nov;83(4):421-47 - PubMed
  32. Psychother Res. 2002 Mar 1;12(1):1-21 - PubMed
  33. Clin Psychol Psychother. 2010 May-Jun;17(3):231-9 - PubMed
  34. J Affect Disord. 2014 Dec;169:128-43 - PubMed

Publication Types