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.
Kubie points out the difficulties in evaluating psychotherapeutic processes, especially in private practice. He depicts an ideal neurosis treatment center where adequate controls and suitable methods of study could be initiated. Hendrick places the therapist's ability to understand the emotional life of the patient in the foreground of all clinical and theoretical instruction.
Kris surveys extrinsic and intrinsic evaluations of the therapist himself, and expresses the opinion that the personal analysis provides subjective and objective criteria of therapeutic work which compare favorably with the data obtained by other methods. The psychotherapist finds constant support and clarification of his methods through continuous self-analysis.
Shakow believes that the therapist is not the best investigator of his own work; the goal of helping the patient does not necessarily coincide with curiosity as to how this process takes place. He suggests that the data of therapy be followed by a group of independent investigators whose composition and procedure he discusses. Brosin elaborates further upon these suggestions.
Bergman points out that the data for evaluating patients will be viewed differently in the context of various therapies. Bibring is of the opinion that the confrontation of techniques employed with results achieved is highly inadequate and maintains that there would be more value in ascertaining the efficacy of different therapeutic agents such as suggestion, transference, insight,