Full text unavailable

You do not currently have permission to view the full text for this document. Please sign in to an account with an active subscription or contact support.

APA 52(2):454-455 (2004)

Factors Associated with Outcome of Psychoanalysis: Intensity, Analyst Status, Analyst Immersion

Authors: Sheila Hafter Gray, Lee David Brauer

Results

During the course of drafting position papers for the American Psycho-analytic Association, questions frequently arose about factors that affect the quality and outcome of psychoanalytic treatment. Based on data submitted to the 1996 Survey of Psychoanalytic Practice by 355 analysts for 972 of their three most recently terminated cases, we delineated characteristics of analysts and their practice style supporting or impeding “good” outcomes. Outcomes were measured (1) by whether the case failed, was interrupted, or was completed; and (2) by change in the patient's Global Adaptive Functioning (GAF) score (DSM-III-R Axis V). Analyst variables included (1) certification; (2) institute status; and (3) extent of immersion in analytic practice.

Are four sessions a week better than three? No. Contrary to generally held belief, we found no difference in outcome between treatments conducted at frequencies of three and four sessions a week (Least Squares Difference [LSD] Test, p = .28).
Are five-sessions-a-week analyses better than three-or four-sessions-a-week treatment? Yes. Cases treated at five sessions a week showed a significantly better chance of achieving successful completion (LSD Test: 3 vs. 5 sessions, p = .009; 4 vs. 5 sessions, p = .014).
Are ordinary clinical psychoanalysts certified by the Board on Professional Standards (OCPBs) better than those who are not certified (OCPs)? No. We found no significant difference between the outcomes of these two groups (Pearson's chi-square test showed no significant differences between any outcomes by analyst group).
Do training analysts show better completion-of-analysis rates than ordinary clinical analysts not certified (OCPs) or ordinary clinical analysts with certification (OCPBs)? Yes. Training analysts have significantly better completion rates for cases at all frequencies of treatment (p < .05) and for cases treated five times a week (Pearson chi-square = 28.14, p = .0001, df = 4).
Does the initial mental health of

APA 52(2):454-455 (2004)

Factors Associated with Outcome of Psychoanalysis: Intensity, Analyst Status, Analyst Immersion

Authors: Sheila Hafter Gray, Lee David Brauer

Results

Are four sessions a week better than three? No. Contrary to generally held belief, we found no difference in outcome between treatments conducted at frequencies of three and four sessions a week (Least Squares Difference [LSD] Test, p = .28).
Are five-sessions-a-week analyses better than three-or four-sessions-a-week treatment? Yes. Cases treated at five sessions a week showed a significantly better chance of achieving successful completion (LSD Test: 3 vs. 5 sessions, p = .009; 4 vs. 5 sessions, p = .014).
Are ordinary clinical psychoanalysts certified by the Board on Professional Standards (OCPBs) better than those who are not certified (OCPs)? No. We found no significant difference between the outcomes of these two groups (Pearson's chi-square test showed no significant differences between any outcomes by analyst group).
Do training analysts show better completion-of-analysis rates than ordinary clinical analysts not certified (OCPs) or ordinary clinical analysts with certification (OCPBs)? Yes. Training analysts have significantly better completion rates for cases at all frequencies of treatment (p < .05) and for cases treated five times a week (Pearson chi-square = 28.14, p = .0001, df = 4).
Does the initial mental health of