Summary
The impact of findings gained in empirical psychoanalytic research and outcome studies on the psychotherapeutic treatment is reported. The importance of the empirical psychoanalytic research for the treatment of patients with personality disorders is shown in different naturalistic efficacy studies. Interpretation of the dominating affect and of the transference-relationship-dyad could be confirmed as essential for the treatment progress. The empirical studies point at the necessity of interpreting affect-regulatory parameters, such as the hostile-externalizing-dysphoric parameter, from the very beginning of the treatment on. Acknowledgement and recognition of externalizing and projective mechanisms should be trained in the psychotherapeutic routine treatment in order to establish a stable working alliance with the patient. The assessment of counter-transference as an additional parameter for evaluation of psychoanalytic process is focused and a model for evaluation ("notation") of psychotherapeutic treatments is reported.
Zusammenfassung
Für die psychotherapeutische Behandlungspraxis lassen sich aus der empirisch-psychoanalytischen Psychotherapieforschung handlungsrelevante Fertigkeiten ableiten. Am Beispiel unterschiedlicher Studien (Therapie-Inanspruchnahme nach Erstgesprächen, zum Prozessverlauf von psychoanalytischen Behandlungen, Anwendungsuntersuchungen in der Routinepraxis) wird die Relevanz dieser Forschungsergebnisse für die Behandlung von Persönlichkeitsstörungen erläutert, und die praktische Bedeutung für Behandlungstechnik, Evaluierung und Praxis abgeleitet. Die in empirischen Studien belegte Wirksamkeit der Deutung des dominanten Affekts und der Übertragungsinteraktion bereits am Beginn von psychotherapeutischen Behandlungen verlangt vor allem die Bearbeitung von Affektregulationsparametern, wie etwa den Parameter des feindseligexternalisierend-dysphorischen Verhaltens. Aus psychoanalytischen Forschungsergebnissen wird die Wichtigkeit der Wahrnehmung und Bearbeitung externalisierender, projektiver Mechanismen für die erfolgreiche Behandlung in der Routinepraxis, für ein stabiles Arbeitsbündnis und eine tragfähige Beziehungsgestaltung zum Patienten1 abgeleitet. Als zusätzlicher Evaluierungsparameter des psychoanalytischen Prozesses wird die begleitende Erfassung der Gegenübertragung thematisiert und ein praxisrelevantes Modell der Evaluierung ("Notation") von Psychotherapien vorgestellt.
Similar content being viewed by others
Literatur
Ablon JS, Jones EE (2005) On analytic process. J Am Psychoanal Assoc 53: 541–568
Albani C, Blaser G, Jacobs U, Jones E, Geyer M, Kächele H (2000) Die Methode des "Psychotherapie-Prozess Q-Sort". Z Klin Psychol Psychiatr Psychother 48: 151–171
Albani C, Ablon JS, Levy RA, Kächele H (Hrsg) (2008) Der "Psychotherapie Prozess Q-Set" von Enrico E. Jones. Deutsche Version und Anwendungen. Verlag Ulmer Textbank, Ulm
Azim HF, Piper WE, Segal PM, Nixon GW, Duncan S (1991) The quality of object relations scale. Bull Menninger Clin 55: 323–343
Betan E, Heim AK, Conklin CZ, Westen D (2005) Countertransference phenomena and personality pathology in clinical practice: an empirical investigation. Am J Psychiatry 162: 890–898
Clarkin JF, Yeomans FE, Kernberg OF (2001) Psychotherapie der Borderline Persönlichkeit. Manual zur Psychodynamischen Psychotherapie [Psychotherapy for Borderline Personality]. Schattauer, Stuttgart
Clarkin JF (2006) Conceptualization and treatment of personality disorders. Psychotherapy Research 16: 1–11
Fonagy P, Roth A, Higgitt A (2005a) Psychodynamic psychotherapies: evidence-based practice and clinical wisdom. Bulletin of the Menninger Clinic 69: 1–58
Fonagy P, Roth A, Higgitt A (2005b) The outcome of psychodynamic psychotherapy for psychological disorders. Clin Neurosci Res 4: 367–377
Grassl R, Löffler-Stastka H (2006) Will there ever be empirical data about projective identification? Critical discussion of Melanie Kleins' concept and a trial of micro-process evaluation. 37th International Meeting, Society of psychotherapeutic research. Edinburgh, Scotland, p 199
Jones EE, Windholz M (1990) The psychoanalytic case study: toward a method for systematic inquiry. J Am Psychoanal Assoc 38: 985–1015
Joseph B (1985) Transference: the total situation. Int J Psycho-Analysis 66: 447–454
Joseph B (1987) Projektive Identifizierung – Klinische Aspekte. In: Bott Spillius E (Hrsg) Melanie Klein heute. Entwicklungen in Theorie und Praxis, Band I: Beiträge zur Theorie, 2. Aufl. Verlag Internationale Psychoanalyse, Stuttgart
Josephs L, Anderson E, Bernard A, Fatzer K, Streich J (2006) Assessing progress in analysis interminable. J Am Psychoanal Assoc 52: 1185–1214
Leichsenring F (2004) Randomized controlled versus naturalistic studies: a new research agenda. Bull Menninger Clin 68: 137–151
Leichsenring F, Rabung S, Leibing E (2004) The efficacy of short-term psychodynamic psychotherapy in specific psychiatric disorders: a meta-analysis. Arch Gen Psychiatry 61: 1208–1216
Löffler-Stastka H (2004a) Affect Regulation and Experiencing Q-Sort (AREQ). Klinische Interviews und Ratingskalen. Hogrefe, Göttingen
Löffler-Stastka H (2004b) Quality of Object Relation Scale (QORS). In: Strauß B, Schumacher H (Hrsg) Klinische Interviews und Ratingskalen. Hogrefe, Göttingen
Löffler-Stastka H, Ponocny-Seliger E, Fischer-Kern M, Leithner K (2005) Utilization of psychotherapy in patients with personality disorder: the impact of gender, character traits, affect regulation, and quality of object-relations. Psychology and Psychotherapy: Theory, Research and Practice 78: 531–548
Löffler-Stastka H, Ponocny-Seliger E, Fischer-Kern M, Leithner-Dziubas K, Schuster N, Hofer E, Nosiska D, Schuster P (2006) Assessment of affective experience, affect regulation and patient-therapist-interaction during the course of psychoanalytic treatments of patients with personality disorders: the impact on treatment outcome. 37th International Meeting, Society of psychotherapeutic research. Edinburgh, Scotland, p 22
Löffler-Stastka H, Ponocny-Seliger E, Fischer-Kern M, Rössler-Schülein H, Leithner-Dziubas K, Schuster P (2007) Validation of the SWAP-200 for diagnosing psychostructural organization in personality disorders. Psychopathology 40: 35–46
Löffler-Stastka H, Ponocny-Seliger E, Szerencsics M, Bartenstein M, Grassl R, Stastka K (2008a) Beneficial and hindering factors for psychotherapy utilization and treatment outcome in personality disorders. Part 1: Diagnostic procedures relevant for psychotherapy planning. Part 2: Assessment procedures relevant for measuring the course of therapy and treatment response. In: Halvorsen I, Olsen S (eds) New research on personality disorders. Nova Science Publishers Inc, New York
Löffler-Stastka H, Rössler-Schülein H, Skale E (2008b) Prädiktoren des Therapieabbruchs in psychoanalytischen Behandlungen von Patienten mit Persönlichkeitsstörungen. Zeitschrift für Psychosomatische Medizin und Psychotherapie 54: 63–76
Pilkonis PA, Neighbors BD, Corbitt EM (1999) Personality disorders: treatments and costs. In: Miller N, Magruder K (eds) Cost-effectiveness of psychotherapy: a guide for practitioners, researchers, and policymakers. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 279–290
Piper WE, Ogrodniczuk JS, McCallum M, Joyce AS, Rosie JS (2003) Expression of affect as a mediator of the relationship between quality of object relations and group therapy outcome for patients with complicated grief. J Consult Clin Psychol 71: 664–671
Rössler-Schülein H, Löffler-Stastka H, Skale E, Diercks C (2006) Objectifying the therapeutic process? First results from the Viennese longitudinal study of psychoanalytic and psychotherapeutic process and outcome. 37th International Meeting, Society of psychotherapeutic research, Edinburgh, Scotland, p 22
Schafer R (1997) The contemporary Kleinians of London. International Universities Press, Madison
Schmid D, Schütz C, Löffler-Stastka H, Wirth U, Burian W (2006) Long term psychoanalytically oriented inpatient treatment of traumatized patients with polytoxicomania: which character traits are beneficial and which impair therapeutic progress? 37th International Meeting, Society of psychotherapeutic research, Edinburgh, Scotland, p 22
Shedler J, Westen D (1998) Refining the measurement of axis II: a Q-sort procedure for assessing personality pathology. Assessment 5: 333–353
Stone M (2006) Personality-disordered patients: treatable and untreatable. American Psychiatric Publishing, p 269
Westen D, Muderrisoglu S, Fowler C, Shedler J, Koren D (1997) Affect regulation and affective experience: individual differences, group differences, and measurement using a Q-sort procedure. J Consult Clin Psychol 65: 429–439
Westen D, Shedler J (1999a) Revising and assessing axis II, part I: developing a clinically and empirically valid assessment method. Am J Psychiatry 156: 258–272
Westen D, Shedler J (1999b) Revising and assessing axis II, part II: toward an empirically based and clinically useful classification of personality disorders. Am J Psychiatry 156: 273–285
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
About this article
Cite this article
Löffler-Stastka, H. Von der empirisch psychoanalytischen Prozess- und Ergebnisforschung zur klinischen Praxis. Psychotherapie Forum 17, 21–28 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00729-009-0276-3
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00729-009-0276-3
Keywords
- Empirical psychoanalytic research
- Personality disorders
- Psychotherapeutic practice
- Treatment technique
- Notation and evaluation