Picture of industrial chimneys polluting horizon

Open Access research shaping international environmental governance...

Strathprints makes available scholarly Open Access content exploring environmental law and governance, in particular the work of the Strathclyde Centre for Environmental Law & Governance (SCELG) based within the School of Law.

SCELG aims to improve understanding of the trends, challenges and potential solutions across different interconnected areas of environmental law, including capacity-building for sustainable management of biodiversity, oceans, lands and freshwater, as well as for the fight against climate change. The intersection of international, regional, national and local levels of environmental governance, including the customary laws of indigenous peoples and local communities, and legal developments by private actors, is also a signifcant research specialism.

Explore Open Access research by SCELG or the School of Law. Or explore all of Strathclyde's Open Access research...

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.