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.
This is the second report (part 2) of an investigation whose general objective was to provide evidence regarding the trustworthiness of the Three-Level Model (3-LM). Three groups of analysts from different IPA regions worked with this model on the same clinical case. SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES: 1) To analyze group output with the same structured qualitative methodology (part 1); 2) To compare the results of the 3-LM group output reported in the 3-LM forms with the process-outcome measures used in the clinical case (part 2); 3) To describe the presence-absence of anchor points in the groups, their similarities and differences (part 2); 4) To exemplify the interrelationship of the three levels of the 3-LM in relation to patient change and the analyst's interventions (part 2). Sample: verbatim transcript of three 3-LM groups. Materials: 3-LM forms, process and outcome measures (APS, DIS and PHI-RADIO) and Operationalized Psychodynamic Diagnosis. RESULTS: Objective 2 found global convergence in the PHI, DIS and APS scores across sessions. Objective 3 showed convergences and divergences in the themes relating to the anchor points. Objective 4 showed how an anchor point corresponds to the focus of treatment and how this is present in the analyst's attitudes and interventions. DISCUSSION: The results offer preliminary support for the trustworthiness of the 3-LM.