Advertisement

17 Effect van meten is weten: therapieresultaten en therapeutische relatie

  • M.F. van Vreeswijk
  • J. Broersen
  • Ph. Spinhoven

Samenvatting

‘Meten is weten’ en ‘kennis is macht’ zijn uitspraken die iedereen wel kent. In het psychotherapeutische veld zijn deze zinnen vooral voorbehouden aan onderzoekers die een wetenschappelijke publicatie willen schrijven over effectiviteit van therapie of aan diagnostici die de problematiek van een patiënt in kaart willen brengen. Maar wat heeft de patiënt nu zelf aan ‘meten is weten’? Kan therapieresultaat toenemen wanneer aan de patiënt feedback wordt gegeven over zijn behandelbeloop zoals gemeten met enkele vooraf vastgestelde meetinstrumenten? Is feedback geven aan therapeuten over therapievordering zinvol?

Literatuur

  1. Bateman, A., & Fonagy, P. (2004). Psychotherapy for borderline personality disorder. Mentalization-based treatment. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Beck, A.T., Freeman, A., & Davis, D.D. (2004). Cognitive therapy of personality disorders (second edition). New York: The Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  3. Beurs, E. de (2005). Routine Outcome Monitoring in het LUMC en Rivierduinen. http://www.lumc.nl/3010/algemeen/Routine%20Monitoring.pdf.
  4. Haas, E., Hill, R.D., Lambert, M.J., & Morrell, B. (2002). Do early responders to psychotherapy maintain treatment gains? Journal of Clinical Psychology, 58, 1157–1172.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Hannan, C., Lambert, M.J., Harmon, C., Nielsen, S.L., Smart, D.W., Shimokawa, K., & Stutton, S.W. (2005). A lab test and algorithms for identifying clients at risk for treatment failure. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 61, 155–163.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Hansen, N.B., Lambert, M.J., & Forman, E.V. (2002). The psychotherapy dose-effect and its implications for treatment delivery services. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 9, 329 –343.Google Scholar
  7. Harmon, C., Hawkins, E.J., Lambert, M.J., Slade, K., & Whipple, J.L. (2005). Improving outcomes for poorly responding clients: the use of clinical support tools and feedback to clients. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 61, 175–185.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Hoffart, A., Sexton, H., Nordahl, H.M., & Stiles, T.C. (2005). Connection between patient and therapist and therapist’s competence in schema-focused therapy of personality problems. Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy, 3, 249–258.Google Scholar
  9. Lambert, M.J. (2005). Emerging methods for providing clinicians with timely feedback on treatment effectiveness: An introduction. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 61, 141–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Lambert, M.J. (2007). Persoonlijke correspondentie.Google Scholar
  11. Lambert, M.J., Burlingame, G.M., Umphress, V., Hansen, N.B., Vermeersch, D.A., Clouse, G.C., & Yanchar, S.C. (1996). The reliability and validity of the outcome questionnaire. Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy, 3, 249–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Lambert, M.J., Hansen, N.B., & Bauer, S. (in druk). Assessing the clinical significance of outcome results. In: A. Nezu & C. Nezu, Evidence-based outcome research. New York: Oxford Press.Google Scholar
  13. Lambert, M.J., & Ogles, B.M. (2004). The efficacy and effectiveness of psychotherapy. In: M.J. Lambert (Ed.), Bergin and Garfield’s handbook of psychotherapy and behavioural change (fifth edition) (p. 139–193). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  14. Lambert, M.J., Whipple, J.L., Smart, D.W., Vermeersch, D.A., Nielsen, S.L., & Hawkins, E.J. (2001). The effects of providing therapist with feedback on client progress during psychotherapy: Are outcomes enhanced? Psychotherapy Research, 11, 49–68.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Lambert, M.J., Whipple, J.L., Vermeersch, D.A., Smart, D.W., Hawkins, E.J., Nielsen, S.L., & Goates, M. (2002). Enhancing psychotherapy outcomes via providing feedback on client progress; A replication. Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, 9, 91–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Leichsenring, F., & Leibing, E. (2003). The effectiveness of psychodynamic therapy and cognitive behavior therapy in the treatment of personality disorders: A meta-analysis. American Journal of Psychiatry, 160, 1223–1232.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lobbestael, J., Vreeswijk, M.F., Arntz, A., & Spinhoven, Ph. (aangeboden voor publicatie). Reliability and validity of the Schema Mode Inventory (SMI).Google Scholar
  18. Martin, D.J., Garske, J.P., & Davis, M.K. (2000). Relation of the therapeutic alliance with outcome and other variables: A meta-analytical review. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 68, 438–450.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Norcross, J.C. (2003). Empirically supported therapy relationships. In: J.C. Norcross (Ed.), Psychotherapy relationships that work (p. 3–16). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Orlinsky, D.E., Ronnestad, M.H., & Willutzki, U. (2004). Fifty years of psychotherapy process-outcome research: Continuity and change. In: M.J. Lambert (Ed.), Bergin and Garfield’s handbook of psychotherapy and behavioral change (fifth edition) (p. 307–390). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  21. Perry, J.C., Banon, E., & Ianni, F. (1999). Effectiveness of psychotherapy for personality disorders. American Journal of Psychiatry, 156, 1312–1321.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Percevic, R., Lambert, M.J., & Kordy, H. (2006). What is the predictive value of responses to psychotherapy for its future course? Empirical explorations and consequences for outcome monitoring. Psychotherapy Research, 16, 364–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Strauss, J.L., Hayes, A.M., Johnson, S.L., Newman, C.F., Brown, G.K., Barber, J.P., Laurenceau, J., & Beck, A.T. (2006). Early alliance, alliance ruptures, and symptom change in a nonrandomized trial of cognitive therapy for avoidant and obsessive-compulsive personality disorders. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 74, 337–345.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Spinhoven, Ph., Giesen-Bloo, J., Dyck, R. van, Kooiman, K., & Arntz, A. (2007). The therapeutic alliance in schema-focused therapy and transference-focused psychotherapy for borderline personality disorder. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 75, 104–115.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Sterk, F., & Rijkeboer, M.M. (1997). Schema-Vragenlijst. Utrecht: Ambulatorium Universiteit Utrecht.Google Scholar
  26. Waddington, L. (2002). The therapy relationship in cognitive therapy: A review. Behavioural and Cognitive Psychotherapy, 30, 179–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Werkgroep richtlijn persoonlijkheidsstoornissen (2008). Multidisciplinaire richtlijn Persoonlijkheidsstoornissen. Richtlijn voor de diagnostiek en behandeling van volwassen patiënten met een persoonlijkheidsstoornis (conceptversie). Utrecht: Trimbos-instituut.Google Scholar
  28. Young, J.E., Klosko, J., & Weishaar, M.E. (2003). Schema therapy: A practitioner’s guide. New York: The Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  29. Young, J., Arntz, A., Atkinson, T., Lobbestael, J., Weishaar, M., Vreeswijk, M.F. van, & Klokman, J. (2007). Schema Mode Inventory (SMI version 1). New York: Schema Therapy Institute.Google Scholar

Website

  1. Trimbos-instituut (2003). Nieuwe ‘thermometers’ voor cliëntwaardering ggz. www.trimbos.nl/default4103.html

Copyright information

© Bohn Stafleu van Loghum, onderdeel van Springer Uitgeverij 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • M.F. van Vreeswijk
  • J. Broersen
  • Ph. Spinhoven

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations