Appendix II: The Patient Outcomes

Note. A number of cautions, all discussed within the text of the book itself, should be kept in mind in reading this table. First, the fourfold categorization of outcomes—“very good,” “moderate,” “equivocal,” and “failed”—is quite coarse, and in a fair number of instances the placements are very arbitrary. However, I do not feel that there is any systematic bias in these placements, and the overall distribution among categories seems to be a good approximation of the actual overall results. Second, and similarly, the groupings within the psychoanalytic cases—“not modified,” “modified,” and “converted” analyses—are again quite coarse, especially since with almost every one of these patients there was some significant modification or introduction of “parameters.” These were all quantitative shadings and arbitrary dividing lines in the first place, and relative distinctions in the second place; that is, as compared with psychoanalytic patients in usual outpatient practice, almost all of these patients had more “modifications” introduced.

Also, of course, the individual case write-ups should be consulted (see