لایب سان

Shared Case Formulation and Therapeutic Alliance This book also promotes the idea that the principle of shared case formulation can offer CBT approaches a specific terminology to deal with the so-called common and unspecific therapeutic processes, namely the management of the therapeutic alli- ance and relationship (Asay and Lambert 1999). It is not a coincidence that, in the above-mentioned psychodynamic and constructivist models, cognition is conceived as inseparable from relational experience to such an extent that they consider the relationship as the real significant mediator of the therapeutic change (Bara 2018; Gabbard 2017). Adopting an operationally CBT-specific terminology for the con- cepts of alliance and therapeutic relationship such as “shared case formulation” without borrowing words from approaches that obey different principles allows one to remain focused on the historical proposal of CBT. It also encourages the concep- tualization of the therapeutic alliance in terms that are consistent with the principles of CBT approaches (Bruch 1998, 2015; Sturmey 2008, 2009). In CBT approaches, alliance and relationship are an important pre-condition of the therapeutic process but are not a unit of analysis for the change process. This observation is not coinci- dental; rather, it is significant for maintaining the distinction between CBT approaches and relational models that increasingly; this distinction suggests the resolutive aspects of the therapeutic process are to be found in the therapeutic rela- tionship as, for example, in the case of Wampold and Imel’s model (Wampold and Imel 2015). It is therefore not just a matter of terminology: Words are important and reflect the nature of the theoretical model

xiii Contents Shared Case Formulation as the Main Therapeutic Process in Cognitive Therapies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Giovanni Maria Ruggiero, Gabriele Caselli, and Sandra Sassaroli Case Formulation in Standard Cognitive Therapy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Giovanni Maria Ruggiero, Gabriele Caselli, and Sandra Sassaroli The Conceptualization Process in Cognitive Behavioral Therapy. Commentary on Chapter “Case Formulation in Standard Cognitive Therapy” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Arthur Freeman Case Formulation in Standard Cognitive Therapy: A Commentary on Chapter “Case Formulation in Standard Cognitive Therapy” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 Steven D. Hollon Commentary to Chapter “Case Formulation in Standard Cognitive Therapy”: The Use of Goals in Cognitive Behavioral Therapy Case Formulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 Angelo Maria Saliani, Claudia Perdighe, Barbara Barcaccia, and Francesco Mancini Case Formulation in the Behavioral Tradition: Meyer, Turkat, Lane, Bruch, and Sturmey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 Giovanni Maria Ruggiero, Gabriele Caselli, and Sandra Sassaroli Some Thoughts on Chapter “Case Formulation in the Behavioral Tradition: Meyer, Turkat, Lane, Bruch, and Sturmey” by Giovanni Maria Ruggiero, Gabriele Caselli and Sandra Sassaroli. . . . 73 Peter Sturmey xiv How B-C Connection, Negotiation of F and Rationale of D Allow the Design and Implementation of a Cooperative and Effective Disputing in Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy . . . . . . . . 79 Giovanni Maria Ruggiero, Diego Sarracino, Gabriele Caselli, and Sandra Sassaroli Commentary on Chapter “How B-C Connection and Negotiation of F allow the Design and Implementation of a Cooperative and Effective Disputing in Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy”: REBT’s B-C Connection and Negotiation of F . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89 Raymond DiGiuseppe and Kristene Doyle Commentary on Chapter “How B-C Connection and Negotiation of F Allow the Design and Implementation of a Cooperative and Effective Disputing in Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy”: REBT Provides a Firm Basis for Case Formulation by Employing an Ongoing, Implicit and Hypothetico-Deductive form of Data Collection in Critical Collaboration, Negotiation and an Equal Relationship with the Client . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99 Wouter Backx Case Formulation in Process-Based Therapies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107 Giovanni Maria Ruggiero, Gabriele Caselli, Andrea Bassanini, and Sandra Sassaroli Commentary on Chapter “Case Formulation in Process-Based Therapies”: Process Based CBT as an Approach to Case Conceptualization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123 Avigal Snir and Stefan Hofmann Clinical Behavior Analysis, ACT and Case Formulation. A Commentary on Chapter “Case Formulation in Process-Based Therapies” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133 Paolo Moderato and Kelly G. Wilson Schema Therapy, Contextual Schema Therapy and Case Formulation: Commentary on Chapter “Case Formulation in Process-Based Therapies” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139 Eckhard Roediger, Gabriele Melli, and Nicola Marsigli Strengths and Limitations of Case Formulation in Constructivist Cognitive Behavioral Therapies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143 Giovanni Maria Ruggiero, Gabriele Caselli, and Sandra Sassaroli A Constructivist Pioneer of Formulation: A Commentary on Chapter “Strengths and Limitations of Case Formulation in Constructivist Cognitive Behavioral Therapies” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163 David A. Winter and Guillem Feixas Contents xv Commentary on the Presentation of the Metacognitive Interpersonal Therapy Model in Chapter “Strengths and Limitations of Case Formulation in Constructivist Cognitive Behavioral Therapies”. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171 Antonino Carcione and Antonio Semerari The Role of Trauma in Psychotherapeutic Complications and the Worth of Giovanni Liotti’s Cognitive-Evolutionist Perspective (CEP): Commentary on Chapter “Strengths and Limitations of Case Formulation in Constructivist Cognitive Behavioral Therapies”. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177 Benedetto Farina The Case Formulation in the Post-Rationalist Constructivist Model: Commentary on Chapter “Strengths and Limitations of Case Formulation in Constructivist Cognitive Behavioral Therapies”. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191 Maurizio Dodet Case Formulation and the Therapeutic Relationship from an Evolutionary Theory of Motivation: Commentary to Chapter “Strengths and Limitations of Case Formulation in Constructivist Cognitive Behavioral Therapies” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 201 Fabio Monticelli Emotion, Motivation, Therapeutic Relationship and Cognition in Giovanni Liotti’s Model: Commentary on Chapter “Strengths and Limitations of Case Formulation in Constructivist Cognitive Behavioral Therapies” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211 Raffaella Visini and Saverio Ruberti Case Formulation as an Outcome and Not an Opening Move in Relational and Psychodynamic Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 217 Giovanni Maria Ruggiero, Gabriele Caselli, and Sandra Sassaroli Commentary to Chapter “Case Formulation as an Outcome and Not an Opening Move in Relational and Psychodynamic Models”: Plan Formulation Vs. Case Formulation: The Perspective of Control-Mastery Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 233 Francesco Gazzillo and George Silberschatz Some Historical and Theoretical Remarks About Psychodynamic Assessment. Commentary on Chapter “Case Formulation as an Outcome and Not an Opening Move in Relational and Psychodynamic Models” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 239 Marco Innamorati and Mariano Ruperthuz Honorato Contents xvi Case Formulation in Psychoanalysis and in Cognitive-Behavioral Therapies: Commentary on Chapter “Case Formulation as an Outcome and Not an Opening Move in Relational and Psychodynamic Models” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 247 Paolo Migone The Empirical State of Case Formulation: Integrating and Validating Cognitive, Evolutionary and Procedural Elements in the CBT Canse Formulation in the LIBET Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 255 Sandra Sassaroli, Gabriele Caselli, and Giovanni Maria Ruggiero Commentary on Chapter “The Empirical State of Case Formulation: Integrating and Validating Cognitive, Evolutionary and Procedural Elements in the CBT Case Formulation in the LIBET Procedure”: A Constructivist Perspective on LIBET . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 285 David A. Winter New Dimensions in Case Planning: Integration of E-Mental Health Applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 291 Christiane Eichenberg Now’s the Time: CBT Shares Case Formulation More (but Not Too) Easily . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 301 Giovanni Maria Ruggiero, Gabriele Caselli, and Sandra Sassaroli Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 309

برای ارسال نظر لطفا وارد شوید یا ثبت نام کنید