Is the quality of therapeutic collaboration associated with the assimilation of problematic experiences progress? A comparison of two cases

OBJECTIVE

How are collaborative interactions associated with clients' progress in therapy? This study addressed this question, by assessing the quality of therapeutic collaboration and comparing it passage by passage with the clients' assimilation of problematic experiences in two cases of major depression treated with Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, one recovered and one improved-but-not-recovered.

METHOD

We used the Therapeutic Collaboration Coding System to code collaborative work and the Assimilation of Problematic Experiences Scale (APES) to rate clients' progress. In both cases, for the distribution of specific collaborative therapeutic exchanges, we tested for the difference of empirical means between lower and higher APES levels.

RESULTS

Both cases progress in APES, but in contrast with Annie (Improved-but-not-recovered), Kate (Recovered) achieved higher levels of change in last sessions. In addition, we found significant differences in the types of collaborative therapeutic exchanges associated with lower and higher APES levels.

CONCLUSION

Ambivalent therapeutic exchanges distinguished the recovered case from the not recovered case highlighting a source of difficulties in facilitating therapeutic change in CBT. In addition, observations in these cases supported the theoretical suggestion that supporting interventions would be better accepted at lower APES levels, whereas challenging interventions would be better accepted at higher APES levels.

Therapeutic collaboration and the assimilation of problematic experiences in emotion-focused therapy for depression: Comparison of two cases

OBJECTIVE

The Assimilation model argues that therapists should work responsively within the client's therapeutic zone of proximal development (TZPD). This study analyzed the association between the collaborative processes assessed by the Therapeutic Collaboration Coding System (TCCS) and advances in assimilation, as assessed by the Assimilation of Problematic Experiences Scale (APES).

METHOD

Sessions 1, 4, 8, 12, and 16 of two contrasting cases, Julia and Afonso (pseudonyms), drawn from a clinical trial of 16-sessions emotion-focused therapy (EFT) for depression, were coded according to the APES and the TCCS. Julia met criteria for reliable and clinically significant improvement, whereas Afonso did not.

RESULTS

As expected, Julia advanced farther along the APES than did Afonso. Both therapists worked mainly within their client's TZPD. However, Julia's therapist used a balance of supporting and challenging interventions, whereas Afonso's therapist used mainly supporting interventions. Setbacks were common in both cases.

CONCLUSIONS

This study supports the theoretical expectation that EFT therapists work mainly within their client's TZPD. Therapeutic exchanges involving challenging interventions may foster client change if they occur in an overall climate of safety.