Psychotherapy Process Dynamics and Their Relation to Treatment Success Do Not Differ Across Diagnoses
Résumé fourni par la source
Psychotherapy process research increasingly uses intensive longitudinal monitoring to capture dynamic patterns of change in patients. In this study, 283 psychiatric inpatients diagnosed with depression (n = 70), PTSD (n = 148), dissociative disorders (n = 26) or personality disorders (n = 39) completed the Therapy Process Questionnaire each evening over an average of 81.5 days per patient, yielding a total of 23,074 assessment days. We computed eight dynamic process characteristics, including variability, autocorrelation, instability and complexity, for each TPQ scale, both on average per patient and in a moving-window approach. Then, the diagnostic groups were compared via one-way ANOVAs with Bonferroni-Holm correction. No significant differences emerged across diagnoses in any average process characteristics or their change over time, indicating that idiosyncratic within-person process dynamics overshadow diagnostic distinctions. Further, patients' clinical improvement was associated with rising mean levels and declining variability in positive emotions, mindfulness, insight and motivation. Again, these predictions of improvement were not moderated by patients' diagnoses. Our results support a transdiagnostic approach to measurement-based care that leverages individual process characteristics to guide interventions, rather than relying on diagnostic categories to predict therapy trajectories.
Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.
Contrôle bibliographique ouvert
DOI retrouvé dans Crossref DOI retrouvé ; titre concordant.
- Titre Crossref
- Psychotherapy Process Dynamics and Their Relation to Treatment Success Do Not Differ Across Diagnoses
- Date Crossref
- 01/01/2026
- Éditeur
- Wiley
- Type
- journal-article
Ce recoupement confirme des métadonnées liées au DOI. Il ne confirme ni la méthode ni les conclusions de l’étude et ne compte pas comme une seconde source scientifique indépendante.
Institutions déclarées
Une affiliation ne permet pas de déduire la nationalité d’un auteur.