4.2 Article

Changes in the level of personality functioning in inpatient psychotherapy

期刊

PSYCHOTHERAPY RESEARCH
卷 31, 期 1, 页码 117-131

出版社

ROUTLEDGE JOURNALS, TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/10503307.2020.1763493

关键词

outcome research; personality disorders; psychoanalytic; psychodynamic therapy; attachment; integrative treatment models; inpatient psychotherapy; DSM-V

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study aimed to investigate whether inpatient psychotherapy would lead to significant improvements in LPF, and found significant medium improvements in LPF with different change patterns for different measurement tools.
Background: The model of Operationalized Psychodynamic Diagnosis and the model of Personality Organization influenced the concept of the Level of Personality Functioning (LPF) in DSM-V. The LPF is becoming a key variable for diagnostics, treatment and outcome measurement, but there are few studies which integrate the LPF in the study design. This study pursues to expand this body of knowledge by investigating the research question: would an inpatient psychotherapy lead to significant improvements in the LPF? Methods: The study included 156 inpatients at the Psychiatric Hospital Munsterlingen, Switzerland. Exclusion criteria were aggression, psychosis, mental retardation, and participation in another study. The LPF was measured with the Operationalized Psychodynamic Diagnosis-Structure Questionnaire (OPD-SQ) and the short version of the Inventory of Personality Organization (IPO-16) at admission and termination of treatment about eleven weeks later. A repeated-measures ANOVA controlled for age, symptom load, treatment duration and gender was conducted. Results: Data revealed significant, medium improvements for OPD-SQ (F(2,88) = 8.24, p < .01, = 0.09) and IPO-16 (F(2,91) = 6.09, p < .05, = 0.06) between admission and termination of psychotherapy and a different change pattern for OPD-SQ and IPO-16. Conclusion: Inpatient psychotherapy is associated with improvements in LPF.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据