Advertisement

Academic Psychiatry

, Volume 29, Issue 3, pp 289–292 | Cite as

Case Formulation in Psychotherapy: Revitalizing Its Usefulness as a Clinical Tool

  • Kang SimEmail author
  • Kok Peng Gwee
  • Anthony Bateman
Original Article

Abstract

Objective

Case formulation has been recognized to be a useful conceptual and clinical tool in psychotherapy as diagnosis itself does not focus on the underlying causes of a patient’s problems. Case formulation can fill the gap between diagnosis and treatment, with the potential to provide insights into the integrative, explanatory, prescriptive, predictive, and therapist aspects of a case. Despite the acknowledgment that case formulation is a basic, necessary, and key clinical skill, it is still largely under-taught and underlearned. Some of the issues faced in the development of a case formulation include that of immediacy versus comprehensiveness, complexity versus simplicity, observation versus organization, and the need for cultural sensitivity toward each individual patient.

Methods

The authors propose five aspects of case formulation beneficial to therapists and residents in training.

Conclusions

The authors argue that case formulation remains an important and indispensable integrative tool for therapists and residents in training who are involved in psychotherapeutic interventions.

Keywords

Academic Psychiatry Clinical Tool Cultural Sensitivity Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry Psychotherapeutic Intervention 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Denman C: What is the point of a formulation, in The Art and Science of Assessment in Psychotherapy. Edited by Mace C. London, Routledge, 1994, pp 167–181Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Perry JC: Scientific progress in psychodynamic formulation. Psychiatry 1989; 52: 245–249PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Berger RM: Characteristics of optimal clinical case formulations: the linchpin concept. Am J Psychotherapy 1998; 52: 287–300Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Barber JP, Crits-Christoph P: Advances in measures of psychodynamic formulations. J Consult Clin Psychol 1993; 61: 574–585PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Persons JB, Mooney KA, Padesky CA: Inter-rater reliability of cognitive behavioural case formulations. Cogn Ther Res 1995; 19: 21–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Margison FR, Barkham M, Evans C, et al: Measurement and psychotherapy: evidence-based practice and practice-based evidence. Br J Psychiatry 2000; 177: 123–130PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Shapiro T: The psychodynamic formulation in child and adolescent psychiatry. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry 1989; 28: 675–680PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Weiner IB: Principles of Psychotherapy. New York, John Wiley & Sons, 1998Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Friedman RS, Lister P: The current status of psychodynamic formulation. Psychiatry 1987; 50: 126–141PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Goldsmith SR, Mandell AJ: The dynamic formulation. Am J Psychiatry 1969; 125: 152–157Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Sperry L, Gudeman JE, Blackwell B, et al: Psychiatric case formulations. Washington, DC, American Psychiatric Association, 2000Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Wolpe J, Turkat ID: Behavioural formulations of clinical cases, in Behavioural Case Formulation. Edited by Turkat ID. New York, Plenum Press, 1985, pp 5–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Persons JB: Case conceptualisation in cognitive-behavior therapy, in Cognitive Therapies in Action: Evolving Innovative Practice. Edited by Kuehlwein KT, Rosen H. San Francisco, Jossey-Bass, 1993, pp 33–53Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Beck AT: Cognitive therapy and the Emotional Disorders. New York, International Universities Press, 1976Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Perry S, Cooper AM, Michels R: The psychodynamic formulation. Am J Psychiatry 1987; 144: 543–550PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ben-Aron M, McCormick WO: The teaching of formulation: facts and deficiencies. Can J Psychiatry 1980; 25: 163–166PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Fleming JA, Patterson PG: The teaching of case formulation in Canada. Can J Psychiatry 1993; 38: 345–350PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Weerasekera P: Formulation: a multiperspective model. Can J Psychiatry 1993; 38: 351–358PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Riesenberg-Malcolm C: Conceptualisation of clinical facts in the analytic process. Int J Psychoanal 1994; 75: 1031–1040PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Haynes SN, O’Brien WH: Functional analysis in behaviour therapy. Clin Psychol Rev 1990; 10: 649–668CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Persons JB: The advantages of studying psychological phenomena rather than psychiatric diagnoses. Am Psychologist 1986; 41: 1252–1260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Bergner RM: Characteristics of optimal clinical case formulations: the linchpin concept. Am J Psychotherapy 1998; 52: 287–300Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Curtis JT, Silberschatz G: The plan formulation method, in Handbook of Psychotherapy Case Formulation. Edited by Eells TD. New York, Guilford, 1997, pp 116–136Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Summers RF: The psychodynamic formulation updated. Am J Psychotherapy 2003; 57: 39–51Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Horowitz MJ: Configurational analysis for case formulation. Psychiatry 1997; 60: 111–119PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Eells TD, Kendjelic EM, Lucas CP: What’s in a case formulation? development and use of a content coding manual. J Psychother Pract Res 1998; 7: 144–153PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Horowitz LM, Rosenberg SE, Ureno G, et al: Psychodynamic formulation, consensual response method, and interpersonal problems. J Consult Clin Psychol 1989; 57: 599–606PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Lo HT, Fung KP: Culturally competent psychotherapy. Can J Psychiatry 2003; 48: 161–170PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Kanfer FH: Target selection for clinical change programs. Behav Assess 1985; 7: 7–20Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Academic Psychiatry 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.McLean Hospital/Harvard Medical SchoolBelmontUSA
  2. 2.Institute of Mental Health/Woodbridge HospitalSingaporeSingapore
  3. 3.Halliwick UnitSt. Ann’s HospitalLondonUK

Personalised recommendations