Assessing Outcome in Psychoanalysis and Long-Term Dynamic Psychotherapy

Publisher Website
Google Scholar
Abstract
The efficacy of psychoanalysis and long-term psychotherapy remains a fundamentally unresolved issue for lack of methodologically sound studies. This article reviews the shortcomings of prior long-term treatment research, and presents a rationale and justification of the importance of more rigorous outcome studies. An emphasis on process research is premature when efficacy remains uncertain. The modern reconceptualization of psychotherapy in terms of hermeneutic theory is discussed in relation to the empirical model. Although historically the hermeneutic perspective has served to repudiate positivism, the hermeneutic and empirical (but not positivistic) approaches to understanding information actually share common priorities. The clearest of these is that the process is ultimately evaluated and validated by the produced effect. It is argued that the recasting of psychoanalytic technique and theory according to aesthetic and pragmatic principles is not inconsistent with contemporary outcome research paradigms so long as the professed treatment objective is clearly specified in verifiable terms. The specific methodologic problems involved in extending the successful short-term psychotherapy research model to psychoanalysis are discussed. An overview of the major components of the Columbia feasibility study currently underway is presented. Finally, a number of assessment domains-for which reliable and validated instruments exist-that are thought to be relevant to outcome are reviewed.