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.
Psychoanalysts have long relied on the case study method to support the validity of their theoretical hypotheses and clinical techniques and the efficacy of their treatments. However, limitations of the case study method have become increasingly salient as the medical-scientific community and policymakers have increasingly emphasized the need for empirical data. This article describes the progression of an analysis from the perspective of both the treating analyst and an independent research team using empirical methods to study verbatim session transcripts. Empirical measures include the Shedler-Westen Assessment Procedure-200 (Westen & Shedler, 1999a, b; Shedler & Westen, 2006), the Defense Mechanism Rating Scale (Perry, 1990a) and the Analytic Process Scales (Waldron, Scharf, Crouse, Firestein, & Burton, 2004b, and Waldron, Scharf, Hurst, et al., 2004a). The article illustrates one way in which clinical and empirical methods can complement each other synergistically and lead to a deeper and more precise understanding of analytic process and psychological change.