Although it is generally acknowledged and accepted that case formulations are useful in psychotherapy treatment, there is significantly little research illustrating how case formulations are useful in treatment. Research also suggests that case formulations are seldom used in practice after initial training (Eells, 1997; Sim, Gwee, & Bateman, 2005). This research was premised on a particular case study which appeared to highlight shifts in psychotherapy treatment in the sessions directly after the writing or revising of the case formulation, thus prompting the inquiry into the influence of the case formulation on therapeutic work. The research utilised a qualitative methodology and focused on a single case which was a 19 year old university student who expressed a problem with binge eating. The data was drawn from five original and revised case formulations. The participant was seen for 27 therapy sessions, over which time five case formulations were developed and revised. The findings in this study highlight the process of how a psychodynamic case formulation can influence therapeutic work, as reflected in three broad themes of adherence to the case formulation, the confidence of the therapist, and using the formulation as an intervention. The study contributes to arguments for the revival of the case formulation as a necessary therapeutic tool. / KMBT_363 / Adobe Acrobat 9.54 Paper Capture Plug-in

The purpose of the study was to examine the effect of STIPS case note documentation and SOAP case note documentation on counseling trainees' perceived case conceptualization abilities. By training master's level counseling students in the use of case note writing and then asking them to rate their perceived conceptualization this study looked at an area of training that has received little attention in the past. This study attempted to begin the process of understanding if case note documentation could be an area that could help counseling students develop their case conceptualization skills.Quantitative and qualitative data analysis was utilized due to the exploratory nature of this study. The quantitative portion examined how the case note documentation affected trainees' perceived case conceptualization abilities while the qualitative portion examined patterns in the responses of participants to open-ended questions about case note documentation.The quantitative results showed that there was no significant difference between the groups in terms of their perceived case conceptualization. The qualitative results indicated that there are benefits and drawbacks to both the STIPS and the SOAP case note formats. / Department of Counseling Psychology and Guidance Services

The purpose of this quantitative, quasi-experimental study was to examine the effects of a standardized case conceptualization training workshop on 104 psychotherapy practitioners recruited from the community. A secondary purpose was to examine the relationship between participants’ attitudes about evidence-based practice and the effects of the training. Participants attended two 3-hour training workshops, which taught the integrative case conceptualization model developed by Sperry (2010b). Pre- and postintervention case conceptualization skills were assessed using the Case Conceptualization Evaluation Form (CCEF) 2.0, an updated version of the instrument used in previous studies. Additionally, participants’ views about case conceptualization were assessed before and after training using the Views about Case Conceptualization (VACC) instrument. Participants’ attitudes about evidence-based practice were also examined as a possible mediating variable between training and effect. These attitudes were assessed using the Evidence-Based Practice Attitudes Scale (EBPAS). Workshops were separated by four weeks in order to assess whether initial training effects persisted over time. Change in case conceptualization skill was analyzed using repeated measures ANOVA. Participants’ mean CCEF 2.0 scores significantly increased (p < .001) from pre-test (M = 11.9; SD = 7.74) to post-test (M = 36.7; SD = 7.80) following the first workshop. The second workshop took place four weeks later with 74 of the original 104 participants. It built on the content of the first workshop and introduced advanced concepts such as client culture, strengths and protective factors, and predictive ability. Participants’ mean CCEF 2.0 scores also significantly increased (p < .001) from pre-test (M = 35.1; SD = 8.11) to post-test (M = 66.3; SD = 10.95) following the second workshop. There was a small but statistically significant (p < .005) decrease of 1.5 points in mean scores from the end of Workshop I to Workshop II, indicating that the effects of the training deteriorate slowly over time. Participants’ attitudes about evidence based practice and some demographic variables were significantly related to training effects. Stepwise hierarchical regression analysis determined that these individual variables account for various portions of the variance in CCEF 2.0 scores. This study’s theoretical, practice, and research implications are discussed in detail. / Includes bibliography. / Dissertation (Ph.D.)--Florida Atlantic University, 2016. / FAU Electronic Theses and Dissertations Collection