Advertisement

The Idiographic Voice in a Nomothetic World: Why Client Feedback Is Essential in Our Professional Knowledge

  • Terje TildenEmail author
Chapter
  • 34 Downloads
Part of the European Family Therapy Association Series book series (EFTAS)

Abstract

Governmental requirements of making use of evidence-based treatments on one side, and the family therapy field’s pluralism on knowledge sources on the other, may create a dilemma for the systemic clinician. This dilemma has also an epistemological relevance on research within the systemic field, addressing which research questions are relevant and needed, as well as applying the appropriate research methodology suited to answer these questions. This dilemma is in this chapter viewed in the light of two domains of knowledge, idiographic and nomothetic, that again are discussed from two perspectives: the sources of knowledge defined in evidence-based practice, combined with three levels of evidence. Central in this discussion is the objective of user involvement by applying systematic feedback that is suggested as a means to integrate the nomothetic and idiographic levels of knowledge. Further, it is also discussed how user involvement may work constructively to the dilemma between professional autonomy and increased governmental requirements.

Keywords

Nomothetic and idiographic knowledge Evidence-based practice Levels of evidence User involvement Systematic feedback 

References

  1. American Psychological Association Presidential Task Force on Evidence Based Practice. (2006). Evidence-based practice in psychology. American Psychologist, 61, 271–285.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.61.4.271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anderson, H. (2016). Postmodern/poststructural/social construction therapies. In T. L. Sexton & J. Lebow (Eds.), Handbook of family therapy (pp. 182–204). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  3. Anderson, T., Ogles, B. M., Patterson, C. L., Lambert, M. J., & Vermeersch, D. A. (2009). Therapist effects: Facilitative interpersonal skills as a predictor of therapist success. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 65(7), 755–768.  https://doi.org/10.1002/jclp.20583CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Boswell, J. F., Kraus, D. R., Miller, S. D., & Lambert, M. J. (2015). Implementing routine outcome monitoring in clinical practice: Benefits, challenges, and solutions. Psychotherapy Research, 25, 6–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Castonguay, L. G., & Muran, C. (2015). Fostering collaboration between researchers and clinicians through building practice-oriented research: An introduction. Psychotherapy Research, 25, 1–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Duncan, B., Miller, S., & Sparks, J. (2000). The heroic client. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.Google Scholar
  7. Duncan, B. L., & Reese, R. J. (2013). Empirically supported treatments, evidence-based treatments, and evidence-based practice. In I. B. Winer (Ed.), Handbook of psychology (2nd ed., pp. 489–513). Hoboken, NJ: Wiely.Google Scholar
  8. Ekeland, T.-J., Aurdal, Å., & Skjelten, I. M. (2014). Når staten vil være terapeut. Fokus på familien, 42, 139–156.Google Scholar
  9. Gondek, D., Edbrooke-Childs, J., Fink, E., Deighton, J., & Wolpert, M. (2016). Feedback from outcome measures and treatment effectiveness, treatment efficiency, and collaborative practice: A systematic review. Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research, 43, 325–343.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10488-015-0710-5CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Gullestad, S. E. (2001). Hva er evidensbasert psykoterapi? Tidsskrift for Norsk Psykologforening, 38, 942–951. ISSN 0332-6470.Google Scholar
  11. Hannan, C., Lambert, M. J., Harmon, C., Nielsen, S. L., Smart, D. W., Shimokawa, K., & Sutton, S. W. (2005). A lab test and algorithms for identifying clients at risk for treatment failure. Journal of Clinical Psychology: In Session, 61, 155–163.  https://doi.org/10.2002/jclp.20108CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Heatherington, L., Friedlander, M. L., Diamond, G. M., Escudero, V., & Pinsof, W. M. (2015). 25 years of systemic therapies research: Progress and promise. Psychotherapy Research, 25, 348–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hoffart, A. (2017). Terapiforskningen trenger en ideografisk vending. Tidsskrift for Norsk Psykologforening, 54(2), 210–212.Google Scholar
  14. Holmquist, R., Phillips, B., & Barkham, M. (2015). Developing practice-based evidence: Benefits, challenges, and tensions. Psychotherapy Research, 25, 20–31.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10503307.2013.861093CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Howard, K. I., Moras, K., Brill, P. L., Martinovich, Z., & Lutz, W. (1996). Evaluation of psychotherapy. Efficacy, effectiveness and client progress. American Psychologist, 51, 1059–1064.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lambert, M. J., Garfield, S. L., & Bergin, A. E. (2004). Overview, trends, and future issues. In M. J. Lambert (Ed.), Bergin and Garfield’s handbook of psychotherapy and behavior change (5th ed., pp. 805–821). New York, NY: Wiley.Google Scholar
  17. Lutz, W., De Jong, K., & Rubel, J. (2015). Patient-focused and feedback research in psychotherapy: Where are we and where do we want to go? Psychotherapy Research, 25(6), 625–632.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10503307.2015.1079661CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. McHugh, R. K., & Barlow, D. H. (2012). Dissemination and implementation of evidence-based psychological interventions. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Nissen-Lie, H. A., Monsen, J. T., Ulleberg, P., & Rønnestad, M. H. (2013). Psychotherapists’ self-reports of their interpersonal functioning and difficulties in practice as predictors of patient outcome. Psychotherapy Research, 23(1), 86–104.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10503307.2012.735775CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Oanes, C. J., Karlson, B., & Borg, M. (2017). User involvement in therapy: Couples’ and family therapists’ lived experiences with the inclusion of a feedback procedure in clinical practice. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Family Therapy, 38, 451–463.  https://doi.org/10.1002/anzf.1232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest. (1975). American comedy-drama film directed by Miloš Forman, based on the 1962 novel One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest by Ken Kesey.Google Scholar
  22. Pinsof, W. M., & Lebow, J. L. (2005). A scientific paradigm for family psychology. In W. M. Pinsof & J. L. Lebow (Eds.), Family psychology. The art of science (pp. 3–19). New York, NY: Oxford.Google Scholar
  23. Pinsof, W. M., & Wynne, L. C. (2000). Toward progress research: Closing the gap between family therapy practice and research. Journal of Marital & Family Therapy, 26, 1–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Rohrbaugh, M. J. (2014). Old wine in new bottles. Decanting systemic family process research in the era of evidence-based practice. Family Process, 53, 434–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Scheier, M. F., & Carver, C. S. (2003). Goals and confidence as self-regulatory elements underlying health and illness behavior. In L. D. Cameron & H. Leventhal (Eds.), The self-regulation of health and illness behavior (pp. 17–41). London, UK: Taylor Francis.Google Scholar
  26. Shimokawa, K., Lambert, M. J., & Smart, D. (2010). Enhancing treatment outcome of patients at risk of treatment failure: Meta-analytic and mega-analytic review of a psychotherapy quality assurance system. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 78, 298–311.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019247CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  27. Sundet, R. (2017). Feedback as means to enhance client-therapist interaction in therapy. In T. Tilden & B. E. Wampold (Eds.), Routine outcome monitoring in couple and family therapy. The empirically informed therapist (pp. 121–142). Cham, Switzerland: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Tilden, T. (2017). How can I know whether my efforts are helpful for the client? Implementing feedback in Norway. In T. Tilden & B. E. Wampold (Eds.), Routine outcome monitoring in couple and family therapy. The empirically informed therapist (pp. 3–13). Cham, Switzerland: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Tilden, T., & Wampold, B. E. (Eds.). (2017). Routine outcome monitoring in couple and family therapy. The empirically informed therapist. Cham, Switzerland: Springer.Google Scholar
  30. Ulvestad, A. K., & Henriksen, A. K. (2007). I skyggen av elfenbenstårnet. In A. K. Ulvestad, A. K. Henriksen, A.-G. Tuseth, & T. Fjeldstad (Eds.), Klienten – den glemte terapeut. Brukerstyring i psykisk helsearbeid (pp. 20–27). Oslo, Norway: Gyldendal Akademisk.Google Scholar
  31. Utvåg, K. M., Steinkopf, S., & Holgersen, H. (2014). Vilkår for klinisk autonomi og dens betydning for praksis. Tidsskrift for Norsk Psykologforening, 51, 861–867.Google Scholar
  32. Walfish, S., McAlister, B., O’Donnell, P., & Lambert, M. J. (2012). An investigation of self-assessment bias in mental health providers. Psychological Reports, 110(2), 639–644.  https://doi.org/10.2466/02.07.17.pr0.110.2.639-644CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  33. Wampold, B. E., & Imel, Z. E. (2015). The great psychotherapy debate: The research evidence for what works in psychotherapy (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. WHO. (1986). http://www.who.int/healthpromotion/about/HPR%20Glossary%201998.pdf. Retrieved from internet April 26. 2018.
  35. Zahl-Olsen, R., & Oanes, C. J. (2017). An anthill of questions that made me prepare for the first session. In T. Tilden & B. E. Wampold (Eds.), Routine outcome monitoring in couple and family therapy. The empirically informed therapist (pp. 121–142). Cham, Switzerland: Springer.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Modum BadVikersundNorway

Personalised recommendations