Journal of Psychotherapy Integration

, Volume 10, Issue 4, pp 403–414 | Cite as

Patients' Own Problem Formulations and Recommendations for Psychotherapy

  • Irena Zuber


One hundred fifty-nine patients' (121 women and 38 men, mean age 35.1 (SD = 7.6) own descriptions of problems that brought them to psychotherapy, as described during a clinical interview, were classified into three categories: symptoms, relations, and a mix of these two categories. Length of problem formulation in millimeters was another variable of interest. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, fourth edition (DSM-IV) diagnosis of the patients was assessed during the same clinical interview. As expected, a relationship between patients' own problem formulations and type of recommended psychotherapy in a naturalistic setting was detected. Length of problem formulations was related, as expected, to type of recommended psychotherapy. No significant relationship between recommendation and DSM-IV Diagnosis Axis II, Axis V, and Axis I, with the exception of anxiety disorders, was disclosed. The results are discussed in terms of Gaw and Butler's model of systematic treatment selection (1995) and the Tallman and Bohart (1999) theory of client as active self-healer.

patients' own problem formulations recommendations for psychotherapy 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. American Psychiatric Association (1994). Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  2. Arnow, B. A., & Castonguay, L. G. (1996). Treatment goals and strategies of cognitivebehavioral and psychodynamic therapists: A naturalistic investigation. Journal of Psychotherapy Integration, 6, 333–347.Google Scholar
  3. Beutler, L. E. (1986). Systematic eclectic psychotherapy. In J. C. Nocross (Ed.), Handbook of eclectic psychotherapy (pp. 94–131). New York: Brunner/Mazel.Google Scholar
  4. Bohart, A. C., & Tallman, K. (1999). How clients make therapy work: The process of active self-healing. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
  5. Frank, J. D. (1995). Psychotherapy as rhetoric: Some implications. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 2, 90–93.Google Scholar
  6. Gaw, K. F.,& Beutler. L. E. (1995). Integrating treatment recommendations. In L. E. Beutler& M. R. Berren (Eds.), Integrative assessment of adult personality (pp. 280–319). New York: The Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  7. Garfield, S. L. (1995). Research on client variables in psychotherapy. In L. E. Beutler & M. R. Berren (Eds.), Integrative assessment of adult personality (pp. 190–229). New York: The Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  8. Hill, D. J., & Bale, R. M. (1980). Development of the Mental Health Locus of Control and Mental Health Locus of Origin Scales. Journal of Personality Assessment, 44(2), 148–156.Google Scholar
  9. Hubble, M. A., Duncan, B. L., & Miller, S. C. (1999). Directing attention to what works. In M. A. Hubble, B. L. Duncan, & S. D. Miller (Eds.), The Heart Soul of Change (pp. 407–447). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
  10. Orlinsky, D. E., Willutzki, U., Meyerberg, J., Cierpka, M., Buchheim, P., & Ambuhl, H. (1996). Quality of the therapeutic relationship: Do common factors in psychotherapy correspond with common characteristics of psychotherapists? SPR Collaborative Research Network. Psychotherapie, Psychosomatik, Medizinische Psychologie, 46, 102–110.Google Scholar
  11. Öst, L. G. (1979) Reliabilitetsmätning vid observationer och skattningar. Nordisk Tidskrift för beteendeterapi, 8, 133–159.Google Scholar
  12. Roth, A. R., & Fonagy, P. (1996). What works for whom? A critical review of psychotherapy research. New York: The Guilford Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Irena Zuber
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Psychiatry, The Psychotherapy UnitSSOStockholmSweden

Personalised recommendations