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.
Given the nature of countertransference, as well as the data-gathering methods of PRP (which depended so much on interviews with all the involved parties—especially the therapist, the supervisor, and the patient—as well as on the clinical records maintained routinely on that patient), access to understanding the role of the therapists' countertransferences (and transferences) in relation to the patients' treatment course and outcome is necessarily more limited, more inferential, and even at times more speculative than we would wish, despite the acknowledged importance of countertransference to the treatment process. Issues of ensuring some appropriate modicum of skill, experience, and requisite training for the therapists were, to a limited extent, handled through the case selection for the research sample.1 Quite apart from the issue of requisite skill in the therapists, there is the further issue of therapist-patient match (or mismatch). Generally, this factor could not be predicted (regardless of the knowledge acquired of the patients' characteristics