Qualitative multi-centered study: Trustworthiness of the three-level model (3-LM) Part 1

References

• Altman de Litvan, M. 2014. Time for Change: Tracking Transformations in Psychoanalysis - The Three-Level Model. London: Karnac.
   Google Scholar
• Altman De Litvan, M. A. 2014. Time for Change: Tracking Transformations in Psychoanalysis-The Three-Level Model. Karnac Books Ltd.
   Google Scholar
• Altmann, M. 2022. “Introduction.” In Clinical Research in Psychoanalysis: Theoretical Basis and Experiences Through Working Parties, edited by M. Altmann, xvi–xxix. New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Altmann, M., M. A. Fitzpatrick-Hanly, and M. Leuzinger-Bohleber. 2012. “Project Committee on Clinical Observation Panels.” The International Journal of Psychoanalysis 93 (3): 748–750.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Altmann, M., D. Miller, and R. Bernardi. 2014. “Three-level Model for Observing Child Patient Transformations.” In Time for Change: Tracking Transformations in Psychoanalysis - The Three Level Model, edited by M. Altmann, 303–319. London: Karnac.
   Google Scholar
• American Psychiatric Association. 2013. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. 5th ed. Arlington, VA: Author.
   Google Scholar
• American Psychological Association. 2012. Competency Benchmarks in Professional Psychology. Revised Competency Benchmarks for Professional Psychology. http://www.apa.org/ed/graduate/revised-competency-benchmarks.doc.
   Google Scholar
• Barber, J. P., and B. A. Sharpless. 2015. “On the Future of Psychodynamic Therapy Research.” Psychotherapy Research 25 (3): 309–320. doi:10.1080/10503307.2014.996624.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bernardi, R. 2014a. “The Assessment of Changes: Diagnostic Aspects.” In Time for Change: Tracking Transformation in Psychoanalysis - The Three Level Model, edited by M. Altmann, 263–281. London: Karnac.
   Google Scholar
• Bernardi, R. 2014b. “The Three-Level Model (3-LM) for Observing Patient Transformations.” In Time for Change: Tracking Transformations in Psychoanalysis- The Three-Level Model, edited by M. Altmann, 3–34. London: Karnac.
   Google Scholar
• Bernardi, R. 2015a. “La evaluación de los cambios del paciente. El modelo de los tres niveles (3-LM). [The evaluation of patient change: The three-level model (3-LM)].” Revista de psicoanálisis y psicoterapia Vol. 2 (number II). https://www.revistamentalizacion.com/ultimonumero/abril2015/bernardi.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Bernardi, R. 2015b. “La evaluación de los cambios del paciente. El modelo de los tres niveles (3-LM). [The Evaluation of Patient Change. The Three-Level Model (3-LM)].” Mentalización. Revista de psicoanálisis y psicoterapia 4: 1–16.
   Google Scholar
• Bernardi, R. 2017. “A Common Ground in Clinical Discussion Groups: Intersubjective Resonance and Implicit Operational Theories.” International Journal of Psychoanalysis 98 (5): 1291–1309.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bernardi, R. 2022. “Working Groups and the Search for Clinical Evidence.” In Clinical Research in Psychoanalysis Theoretical Basis and Experiences Through Working Parties, edited by M. Altmann de Litvan, 312–323. New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Calef, V. 1972. “A Report of the 4th Pre-Congress on Training, Vienna 1971 to the 27th International Psycho-Analytical Congress.” International Journal of Psycho-Analysis 53: 37–44.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chaves, Pinto. 2022. “The Mysterious Leap from Clinical Practice to Clinical Research.” In Clinical Research in Psychoanalysis: Theoretical Basis and Experiences Through Working Parties, edited by M. Altmann, 3–10. New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Corral, Y. 2016. “Validez y fiabilidad de las investigaciones cualitativas. [Validity and Reliability in Qualitative Studies].” Revista Arjé 11 (20): 196–209.
   Google Scholar
• Cypress, B. S. 2017. “Rigor or Reliability and Validity in Qualitative Research: Perspectives, Strategies, Reconceptualization, and Recommendations.” Dimensions of Critical Care Nursing 36 (4): 253–263.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• De la Parra, G., E. Gómez-Barris, and P. Dagnino. 2016. “Conflicto y estructura en psicoterapia dinámica: el diagnostico psicodinámico operacionalizado (OPD-2). [Conflict and Structure in Dynamic Psychotherapy: The Operationalized Psychodynamic Diagnosis (OPD-2)].” Mentalización. Revista de psicoanálisis y psicoterapia. https://revistamentalizacion.com/ultimonumero/abril2016/delaparra.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• De Leon, B., and M. Altmann. 2014. “The Three-Level Model in Psychoanalytic Training.” In Time for Change: Tracking Transformation in Psychoanalysis - The Three-Level Model, edited by M. Altmann, 281–294. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• De Maat, S., F. de Jonghe, R. de Kraker, F. Leichsenring, A. Abbass, P. Luyten, J. P. Barber, R. Van, and J. Dekker. 2013. “The Current State of the Empirical Evidence for Psychoanalysis: A Meta-Analytic Approach.” Harvard Review of Psychiatry 21 (3): 107–137.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dreher, A. U. 2022. “What is Clinical Research in Psychoanalysis? Some Comments on Its Scientific Background.” In Clinical Research in Psychoanalysis: Theoretical Basis and Experiences Through Working Parties, edited by M. Altmann, 11–26. New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Elliott, R., C. T. Fischer, and D. L. Rennie. 1999. “Evolving Guidelines for Publication of Qualitative Research Studies in Psychology and Related Fields.” British Journal of Clinical Psychology 38 (3): 215–229.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fitzpatrick Hanly, M. A., R. Bernardi, and A. de Litvan. 2021. “Chapter Fifteen: Guidelines for Organising 3-LM Groups.” In Changes Through Time in Psychoanalysis, edited by M. A. Fitzpatrick Hanly, R. Bernardi, and A. de Litvan, 309–333. New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Fonagy, P. 2015. “Epistemological and Methodological Issues on Process and Outcomes Research. Research Issues in Psychoanalysis.” In An Open Door Review of Outcome and Process Studies in Psychoanalysis, 3rd ed, 41–73. International Psychoanalytical Association.
   Google Scholar
• Garbarino, A., M. Luzardo, and A. Corti. 2012. “Agreement Among Clinical Judgments of Psychoanalysts Regarding the Effects of Unconscious Mental Processes of Change During Long Periods of Psychoanalysis.” Research undertaken with an IPA Research Grant, International Psychoanalytical Association.
   Google Scholar
• Golafshani, N. 2003. “Understanding Reliability and Validity in Qualitative Research.” The Qualitative Report 8 (4): 597–607.
   Google Scholar
• Green, A. 2005. “The Illusion of Common Ground and Mythical Pluralism.” International Journal of Psychoanalysis 86 (3): 627–632.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Guba, E. G., and Y. S. Lincoln. 1982. “Epistemological and Methodological Bases of Naturalistic Inquiry.” Educational Communication and Technology 30 (4): 233–252.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gullestad, S. E. 2014. “Close to Observation: Some Reflections on the Value of the Three-Level-Model for Studying Change.” In Time for Change: Tracking Transformation in Psychoanalysis - The Three Level Model, edited by M. Altmann, 163–171. London: Karnac.
   Google Scholar
• Hill, C. E. 2012. Consensual Qualitative Research: A Practical Resource for Investigating Social Science Phenomena. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
   Google Scholar
• Hill, C. E., and S. Knox. 2021. Essentials of Consensual Qualitative Research. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
   Google Scholar
• Hill, C. E., S. Knox, B. J. Thompson, E. N. Williams, S. A. Hess, and N. Ladany. 2005. “Consensual Qualitative Research: An Update.” Journal of Counseling Psychology 52 (2): 196–205. doi:10.1037/0022-0167.52.2.196.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hill, C. E., B. J. Thompson, and E. N. Williams. 1997. “A Guide to Conducting Consensual Qualitative Research.” The Counseling Psychologist 25 (4): 517–572. doi:10.1177/0011000097254001.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hurvich, M. 2014. “Some Reflections on the Three-Level Model: Organizing Psychoanalytic Knowledge Through Clinical Observations and Generalizations.” In Time for Change: Tracking Transformation in Psychoanalysis - The Three Level Model, edited by M. Altmann, 247–263. London: Karnac.
   Google Scholar
• Juan, S. 2017. “Criterios para evaluar el proceso de supervisión en terapia psicoanalítica: aportes del Diagnóstico Psicodinámico Operacionalizado 2 (OPD-2). [Criteria for Assessing the Psychoanalytic Therapy Supervision Process: Contributions of the Operationalized Psychodynamic Diagnosis 2 (OPD-2)].” Subjetividad y Procesos Cognitivos 21 (2): 59–81. http://dspace.uces.edu.ar:8180/xmlui/bitstream/handle/123456789/4284/Criterios_Juan.pdf?sequence=1.
   Google Scholar
• Juan, S., J. M. Gómez Penedo, I. Etchebarne, and A. J. Roussos. 2011. “El método de investigación cualitativa consensual (Consensual Qualitative Research, CQR): Una herramienta para la investigación cualitativa en psicología clínica. [The Consensual Qualitative Research Method: A Tool for Qualitative Research in Clinical Practice in Psychology].” Anuario de investigaciones 18: 47–56. doi:10.2307/j.ctvdf06h7.8.
   Google Scholar
• Juan, S., R. T. Manubens, I. Chávez, L. L. Fediuk, A. Roussos, and J. M. Gómez Penedo. 2019. “Focos Terapéuticos en un Caso de Abandono Temprano: Perspectivas del Terapeuta y de Jueces Externos. [Therapeutic Foci in a Case of Early Abandonment: Perspectives of the Therapist and of External Judges].” Investigaciones en Psicología 24 (2): 33–42. https://www.psi.uba.ar/investigaciones/revistas/investigaciones/indice/trabajos_completos/anio24_2/juan.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Leibovich de Duarte. 2014. “Working with the Third Level of the Three-Level Model: The Incidence of our Theoretical Model on Our Clinical Thinking.” In Time for Change: Tracking Transformation in Psychoanalysis - The Three Level Model, edited by M. Altmann, 171–187. London: Karnac.
   Google Scholar
• Leung, L. 2015. “Validity, Reliability, and Generalizability in Qualitative Research.” Journal of Family Medicine and Primary Care 4 (3): 324.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Leuzinger-Bohleber, M. 2002. “A Follow-up Study – Critical Inspiration for Our Clinical Practice?” In Outcome of Psychoanalytic Treatment, edited by M. Leuzinger-Bohleber, and M. Target, 143–173. London: Whurr.
   Google Scholar
• Leuzinger-Bohleber, M. 2011. “Ethical Dilemmas due to Prenatal and Genetic Diagnostics: An Interdisciplinary, European Study (EDIG, 2005–2008).” In T. Fischmann & E. Hildt (Eds.), Ethical Dilemmas in Prenatal Diagnosis, 1–34. Dordrecht: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Leuzinger-Bohleber, M. 2014. “Depression and Trauma: The Psychoanalysis of a Patient Suffering from Chronic Depression.” In Time for Change: Tracking Transformation in Psychoanalysis - The Three Level Model, edited by M. Altmann, 122–163. London: Karnac.
   Google Scholar
• Leuzinger-Bohleber, M. E., E. M. E. Engels, and J. E. Tsiantis. 2008. The Janus Face of Prenatal Diagnostics: A European Study Bridging Ethics, Psychoanalysis, and Medicine. London: Karnac Books.
   Google Scholar
• Leuzinger-Bohleber, M., L. Kallenbach, and M. J. Schoett. 2016. “Pluralistic Approaches to the Study of Process and Outcome in Psychoanalysis. The LAC Depression Study: A Case in Point.” Psychoanalytic Psychotherapy 30 (1): 4–22.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leuzinger-Bohleber, M., and M. Teising. 2012. “Without Being in Psycho-Analysis I Would Never have Dared to become Pregnant”: Psychoana-Lytical Observations in a Multidisciplinary Study Concerning a Woman Undergoing Prenatal Diagnostics.” International Journal of Psychoanalysis 93 (2): 293–315.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lincoln, Y. S., and E. G. Guba. 1985. Naturalistic Inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.
   Google Scholar
• Luborsky, L., and P. Crits-Christoph. 1990. Understanding Transference, the CCRT Method (The Core Conflictual Relationship). New York: Basic Books.
   Google Scholar
• OPD Task Force. 2008. Operationalized Psychodynamic Diagnosis OPD-2: Manual of Diagnosis and Treatment Planning. Translated by E. Ristl. Ashland, OH: Hogrefe & Huber Publishers.
   Google Scholar
• Reith, B., M. Moller, J. Boots, P. Crick, A. Gibeault, R. Jaffe, S. Lagerlof, and R. Vermote. 2018. Beginning Analysis. On the Process of Initiating Psychoanalysis. Routledge in Association with the Institute of Psychoanalysis. London: London and New York.
   Google Scholar
• Rodríguez Quiroga de Pereira, A., L. Borensztein, L. Bongiardino, S. I. Aufenacker, R. Manubens, L. López Fediuk, J. M. Gómez Penedo, and S. Juan. 2020. “Testing Hypotheses of Change: A Systematic Single-Case Study of Psychodynamic Psychotherapy Using the Three-Level Model (3-LM).” Submitted for publication. https://www.pep-web.org/document.php?id=ijpopen.007.0085a.
   Google Scholar
• Rodríguez Quiroga de Pereira, A., L. Borensztein, V. Corbella, and J. C. Marengo. 2018. “The Lara Case: A Group Analysis of Initial Psychoanalytic Interviews Using Systematic Clinical Observation and Empirical Tools.” The International Journal of Psycho-Analysis 99 (6): 1327–1352.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rodríguez Quiroga de Pereira, A., M. Rita Ragau, L. Borensztein De Weinstein, and S. Jadur. 2007. “Authors Who Have an Impact on Candidates’ Training: Cultural Differences and Theoretical Languages.” International Journal of Psychoanalysis 88: 1245–1261.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rodriguez Quiroga, A. 2018. “Revisión del libro: La formulación psicodinámica de caso. Su valor para la práctica clínica. [Book Review: Psychodynamic Case Formulation: Its Value for Clinical Practice].” The International Journal of Psychoanalysis 99 (1): 266–271.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rodriguez Quiroga, A. 2022. “A descriptive comparison of first interviews under the light of 3-LM and initiating psychoanalysis.” In Clinical Research in Psychoanalysis: Theoretical Basis and Experiences Through Working Parties, edited by M. Altmann, 275–282. New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Solms, M. 2019. “The Hard Problem of Consciousness and the Free Energy Principle.” Frontiers in Psychology 9: 2714.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Timulak, L., and R. Elliott. 2019. “Taking Stock of Descriptive–Interpretative Qualitative Psychotherapy Research: Issues and Observations from the Front Line.” Counselling and Psychotherapy Research 19 (1): 8–15.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ungar, V., and M. A. Fitzpatrick-Hanley. 2014. “Tracking Patient Transformation: The Function of Observation in Psychoanalysis.” In Time for Change: Tracking Transformation in Psychoanalysis - The Three-Level Model, edited by M. Altmann, 101–120. London: Karnac.
   Google Scholar
• Vermote, R. 2022. “Clinical Psychoanalytic Research with the Working Party Method: State of the Art.” In Clinical Research in Psychoanalysis: Theoretical Basis and Experiences Through Working Parties, edited by M. Altmann, 296–311. New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Wallerstein, R. S. 1978. “Perspectives on Psychoanalytic Training Around the World.” International Journal of Psycho-Analysis 59: 477–503.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wallerstein, R. S. 2005. “Psychoanalytic Controversies: Will Psychoanalytic Pluralism be an Enduring State of Our Discipline?.” The International Journal of Psychoanalysis 86 (3): 623–638.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Williams, E. N., and S. L. Morrow. 2009. “Achieving Trustworthiness in Qualitative Research: A pan-Paradigmatic Perspective.” Psychotherapy Research 19 (4-5): 576–582.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar