Picture map of Europe with pins indicating European capital cities

Open Access research with a European policy impact...

The Strathprints institutional repository is a digital archive of University of Strathclyde's Open Access research outputs. Strathprints provides access to thousands of Open Access research papers by Strathclyde researchers, including by researchers from the European Policies Research Centre (EPRC).

EPRC is a leading institute in Europe for comparative research on public policy, with a particular focus on regional development policies. Spanning 30 European countries, EPRC research programmes have a strong emphasis on applied research and knowledge exchange, including the provision of policy advice to EU institutions and national and sub-national government authorities throughout Europe.

Explore research outputs by the European Policies Research Centre...

An adjudicated hermeneutic single-case efficacy design study of experiential therapy for panic/phobia

Elliott, Robert and Partyka, Rhea and Alperin, Rebecca and Dobrenski, Robert and Wagner, John and Messer, Stanley B. and Watson, Jeanne C. and Castonguay, Louis G. (2009) An adjudicated hermeneutic single-case efficacy design study of experiential therapy for panic/phobia. Psychotherapy Research, 19 (4-5). pp. 543-557. ISSN 1050-3307

[img]
Preview
Text (strathprints016829)
strathprints016829.pdf - Accepted Author Manuscript

Download (158kB) | Preview

Abstract

This paper illustrates the application of an adjudicated form of Hermeneutic Single Case Efficacy Design (HSCED), a critical-reflective method for inferring change and therapeutic influence in single therapy cases. The client was a 61 year-old European-American male diagnosed with panic and bridge phobia. He was seen for 23 sessions of individual Process-Experiential/Emotion-Focused Therapy. In this study, affirmative and skeptic teams of researchers developed opposing arguments regarding whether the client changed over therapy and whether therapy was responsible for these changes. Three judges representing different theoretical orientations then assessed data and arguments, rendering judgments in favor of the affirmative side. We discuss clinical implications and recommendations for the future interpretive case study research.