Hide metadata

dc.contributor.authorSørbye, Øystein
dc.contributor.authorDahl, Hanne-Sofie J
dc.contributor.authorEells, Tracy D
dc.contributor.authorAmlo, Svein
dc.contributor.authorHersoug, Anne G
dc.contributor.authorHaukvik, Unn K
dc.contributor.authorHartberg, Cecilie B
dc.contributor.authorHøglend, Per A
dc.contributor.authorUlberg, Randi
dc.date.accessioned2019-10-30T03:37:14Z
dc.date.available2019-10-30T03:37:14Z
dc.date.issued2019
dc.identifier.citationBMC Psychology. 2019 Oct 24;7(1):67
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10852/70710
dc.description.abstractBackground To bridge the gap between symptoms and treatment, constructing case formulations is essential for clinicians. Limited scientific value has been attributed to case formulations because of problems with quality, reliability, and validity. For understanding, communication, and treatment planning beyond each specific clinician-patient dyad, a case formulation must convey valid information concerning the patient, as well as being a reliable source of information regardless of the clinician’s theoretical orientation. The first aim of the present study is to explore the completeness of unstructured psychodynamic formulations, according to four components outlined in the Case Formulation Content Coding Method (CFCCM). The second aim is to estimate the reliability of independent formulations and their components, using similarity ratings of matched versus mismatched cases. Methods This study explores psychodynamic case formulations as made by two or more experienced clinicians after listening to an evaluation interview. The clinicians structured the formulations freely, with the sole constraint that technical, theory-laden terminology should be avoided. The formulations were decomposed into components after all formulations had been written. Results The results indicated that most formulations were adequately comprehensive, and that overall reliability of the formulations was high (> 0.70) for both experienced and inexperienced clinician raters, although the lower bound reliability estimate of the formulation component deemed most difficult to rate - inferred mechanisms - was marginal, 0.61. Conclusions These results were achieved on case formulations made by experienced clinicians using simple experience-near language and minimizing technical concepts, which indicate a communicative quality in the formulations that make them clinically sound. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00423462. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00432-018-2781-7 ., January 18, 2007.
dc.language.isoeng
dc.rightsThe Author(s).
dc.rightsAttribution 4.0 International
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
dc.titlePsychodynamic case formulations without technical language: a reliability study
dc.typeJournal article
dc.date.updated2019-10-30T03:37:15Z
dc.creator.authorSørbye, Øystein
dc.creator.authorDahl, Hanne-Sofie J
dc.creator.authorEells, Tracy D
dc.creator.authorAmlo, Svein
dc.creator.authorHersoug, Anne G
dc.creator.authorHaukvik, Unn K
dc.creator.authorHartberg, Cecilie B
dc.creator.authorHøglend, Per A
dc.creator.authorUlberg, Randi
dc.identifier.cristin1745387
dc.identifier.doihttps://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-019-0337-5
dc.identifier.urnURN:NBN:no-73839
dc.type.documentTidsskriftartikkel
dc.type.peerreviewedPeer reviewed
dc.identifier.fulltextFulltext https://www.duo.uio.no/bitstream/handle/10852/70710/1/40359_2019_Article_337.pdf
dc.type.versionPublishedVersion
cristin.articleid67


Files in this item

Appears in the following Collection

Hide metadata

Attribution 4.0 International
This item's license is: Attribution 4.0 International