Therapist’s interventions immediately after exceeding the client’s therapeutic zone of proximal development: A comparative case study

Figures & data

Figure 1. Therapist’s interventions immediately after Challenging-Intolerable Risk exchanges by case.

Note: Sessions 12 in the recovered case and 10, 14, and 15 in the recovered case = missing data.

Figure 2. Client’s responses to the therapist’s challenging interventions immediately after Challenging-Intolerable Risk exchanges in the recovered case.

Note: Session 12 = missing data.

Figure 3. Client’s responses to the therapist’s challenging interventions immediately after Challenging-Intolerable Risk exchanges in the unrecovered case.

Note: Sessions 10, 14, and 15 = missing data.

Figure 4. Sequences of consecutive Challenging-Intolerable Risk exchanges within sessions in the recovered case.

Note: Session 12 = missing data; C-IR: Challenging-Intolerable Risk.

Figure 5. Sequences of consecutive Challenging-Intolerable Risk exchanges within sessions in the unrecovered case.

Note: Sessions 10, 14, and 15 = missing data; C-IR: Challenging-Intolerable Risk.

Table I. Percentage of the therapist’s interventions and clients’ validation responses according to the sequence of consecutive Challenging-Intolerable Risk exchanges by case.

Case	Consecutive C-IR exchanges	Therapist’s intervention		Client’s validation response
Recovered	1	Supporting Problem	0.42	0.91
		Challenging	0.58	0.83
	2	Supporting Problem	0.56	0.92
		Challenging	0.44	0.65
	3	Supporting Problem	0.38	1.00
		Challenging	0.62	0.63
Unrecovered	1	Supporting Problem	0.42	0.89
		Challenging	0.58	0.74
	2	Supporting Problem	0.38	1.00
		Challenging	0.62	0.60
	3	Supporting Problem	0.40	1.00
		Challenging	0.60	1.00

Note: C-IR: Challenging-Intolerable Risk.