TY - JOUR
T1 - Shift in representation and symbolisation of affective experience
T2 - a paradoxical outcome in therapy
AU - Thoresen, Lars Henrik Kaasen
AU - Thørnquist, Hans Hella
AU - Stänicke, Erik
AU - McLeod, John
N1 - © 2021 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Data availability statement:
Not present.
PY - 2021/7/9
Y1 - 2021/7/9
N2 - Defining outcome represents a key challenge for psychotherapy theory, research and practice. The present paper uses a case study of a client with anorexia nervosa to contribute to the development of conceptual understanding of the nature of paradoxical outcome. In this case, different sources of outcome data offered different answers to the question of whether or not the therapy had been successful. Qualitative thematic analysis of therapy transcriptions was carried out, using Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis (IPA). Both the process of change that occurred in this case, and the conflicting outcome indicators, could be explained in terms of a model of affect elaboration. These findings are discussed in terms of the need for caution when interpreting results from outcome measures in psychotherapy research and practice.
AB - Defining outcome represents a key challenge for psychotherapy theory, research and practice. The present paper uses a case study of a client with anorexia nervosa to contribute to the development of conceptual understanding of the nature of paradoxical outcome. In this case, different sources of outcome data offered different answers to the question of whether or not the therapy had been successful. Qualitative thematic analysis of therapy transcriptions was carried out, using Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis (IPA). Both the process of change that occurred in this case, and the conflicting outcome indicators, could be explained in terms of a model of affect elaboration. These findings are discussed in terms of the need for caution when interpreting results from outcome measures in psychotherapy research and practice.
U2 - 10.1080/13642537.2021.1923048
DO - 10.1080/13642537.2021.1923048
M3 - Article
SN - 1364-2537
VL - 23
SP - 177
EP - 200
JO - European Journal of Psychotherapy & Counselling
JF - European Journal of Psychotherapy & Counselling
IS - 2
ER -