A multicentre study: Comparison of 3-LM group output and therapeutic outcome measures. Adding to the trustworthiness of the 3-LM? Part 2

References

• Altman de Litvan, M. 2014. Time for Change. Tracking Transformations in Psychoanalysis. The Three-Level Model. London: Karnac.
   Google Scholar
• Areas, M. A., A. J. Roussos, H. Hirsch, P. Hirschegger, P. Becerra, and J. M. Gómez Penedo. 2018. “Evaluación de un dispositivo de investigación orientada por la práctica para el desarrollo de un sistema de feedback en psicoterapia [The Evaluation of a Clinically Oriented Investigative Device for the Development of a Feedback System in Psychotherapy].” Revista Argentina de Clínica PSicológica 17 (2): 229–249. doi:10.24205/03276716.2018.1064.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Balint, M., E. Balint, and P. H. Ornstein. 1961/1972. Focal Psychotherapy: An Example of Applied Psychoanalysis. London: Tavistock.
   Google Scholar
• Bernardi, R. 2001. “Psychoanalytic Goals: New and Old Paradoxes.” The Psychoanalytic Quarterly 70 (1): 67–98.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bernardi, R. 2014. “La formulación clínica del caso: su valor para la práctica clínica [Psychodynamic Case Formulation: Its Value for Clinical Practice].” Revista de psiquiatría del Uruguay 78 (2): 157–172.
   Google Scholar
• Bernardi, R. 2015. “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 4: 1–16.
   Google Scholar
• Bernardi, R. 2022. “Moving from Clinical Inquiry to Clinical Research.” In Clinical Research in Psychoanalysis, 65–83. Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Bernardi, R., and Pérez Suquilvide L. 2021. “Assessing Strengths and Limitations of Clinical Evidence in a Psychoanalytic Clinical Material.” In Change Through Time in Psychoanalysis: Transformations and Interventions: The Three Level Model, edited by M. Fitzpatrick Hanly, M. Altmann de Litvan, and R. Bernardi, 281–305. New York: International Psychoanalytic Association.
   Google Scholar
• Cogan, R., and J. H. Porcerelli. 2004. “Personality Pathology, Adaptive Functioning, and Strengths at the Beginning and End of Psychoanalysis.” Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association 52 (4): 1230–1231.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cogan, R., and J. H. Porcerelli. 2005. “Clinician Reports of Personality Pathology of Patients Beginning and Patients Ending Psychoanalysis.” Psychology and Psychotherapy: Theory, Research and Practice 78 (2): 235–248.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dagnino, P., G. De La Parra, A. Jaramillo, C. Crempien, O. Padilla, E. Gómez-Barris, P. Luzio, et al. 2014. “El devenir del cambio: Cómo es y hacia dónde se dirige [The Evolution of Change: What is it and Where Does it Lead?].” Revista Argentina de Clínica Psicológica 23 (3): 23–40.
   Google Scholar
• Dahlbender, R., H. Kächele, G. Frevert, and S. Schnekenburger. 1995. “La formulación formal del foco en la psicoterapia [The Formal Formulation of a Focal Point in Psychotherapy].” In Psicoterapia focal: intervenciones de objetivos y tiempos definidos, edited by D. Defey, J. H. Elizalde, and J. Rivera, 223–230. Montevideo: Roca viva.
   Google Scholar
• Etchebarne, I., J. M. Gomez Penedo, and A. J. Roussos. 2019. Nuevos desarrollos en el tratamiento del Trastorno de Ansiedad Generalizada: Abordajes psicoterapéuticos, farmacológicos y debates actuales. [New Developments in the Treatment of Generalized Anxiety Disorder: Psychotherapeutic, Pharmacological Approaches and Current Debates]. Miño y Dávila.
   Google Scholar
• Fernández-Álvarez, H., and L. Castonguay. 2018. “Investigación orientada por la práctica: avances en colaboraciones entre clínicos e investigadores. Introducción [Clinically Oriented Research: Advances in Collaboration Between Clinicians and Researchers].” Revista Argentina de Clínica Psicológica 27 (2): 107–114. doi:10.24205/03276716.2018.1069.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• French, T. M. 1952. The Integration of Behavior Vol I: Basic Postulates. Chicago: University Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Freud, S. 1893–1895. Studies on Hysteria. SE. p. 290. Vol 2. [Estudios sobre la histeria. Buenos Aires: Amorrortu].
   Google Scholar
• Gazzillo, F., B. Gorman, M. Bush, G. Silberschatz, C. Mazza, F. Faccini, V. Crisafulli, R. Alesiani, and E. De Luca. 2017. “Reliability and Validity of the Interpersonal Guilt Rating Scale-15: A New Clinician-Reporting Tool for Assessing Interpersonal Guilt According to Control-Mastery Theory.” Psychodynamic Psychiatry 45 (3): 362–384.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Haynes, S. N. 1994. “Juicio clínico y diseño de programas de intervención conductual: Estimación de la magnitud de los efectos de la intervención [Clinical Judgment and Programme Design for Behavioural Intervention: Estimation of the Magnitude of the Effects of Intervention].” Psicología Conductual 2 (2): 165–184.
   Google Scholar
• Hill, Clara E. 2012. Consensual Qualitative Research: A Practical Resource for Investigating Social Science Phenomena. 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., 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: 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
• Ibáñez, C., and E. Echeburúa. 2015. “Función y limitaciones del pronóstico en la evaluación diagnóstica en el ámbito de la psicología clínica [Function and Limitations of the Prognosis in Diagnostic Evaluation in the Field of Clinical Psychology].” Clínica y salud 26 (1): 17–22.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Juan, S., I. Etchebarne, V. Waizmann, A. Leibovich de Duarte, and A. Roussos. 2009. “El proceso inferencial clínico, el pronóstico y las intervenciones del psicoterapeuta [The Process of Clinical Inference, the Prognosis and Interventions of the Psychotherapist].” Anuario de Investigaciones 16: 43–51.
   Google Scholar
• Juan, S., J. M. G. 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.
   Google Scholar
• Kächele, H., J. Schachter, and H. Thomä. 2009. “The Ulm Psychoanalytic Process Research Study Group.” In From Psychoanalytic Narrative to Empirical Single Case Research: Implications for Psychoanalytic Practice, 112–114. New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Kächele, H., H. Thomä, W. Ruberg, and H. J. Grünzig. 1988. “Audio-Recordings of the Psychoanalytic Dialogue: Scientific, Clinical and Ethical Problems.” In Psychoanalytic Process Research Strategies, edited by H. Dahl, H. Kächele, and H. Thomä, 179–193. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-74265-1_12.
   Google Scholar
• Lingiardi, V., and N. McWilliams, eds. 2017. Psychodynamic Diagnostic Manual: PDM-2. New York: Guilford Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Luborsky, L. 1977. “Measuring a Pervasive Psychic Structure in Psychotherapy: The Core Conflictual Relationship Theme.” In Communicative Structures and Psychic Structures, 367–395. Boston, MA: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Luborsky, L., and P. Crits-Christoph. 1988. “The Assessment of Transference by the CCRT Method.” In Psychoanalytic Process Research Strategies, edited by H. Dahl, H. Kächele, and H. Thomä, 99–108. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Luborsky, L., and R. J. DeRubeis. 1984. “The use of Psychotherapy Treatment Manuals: A Small Revolution in Psychotherapy Research Style.” Clinical Psychology Review 4 (1): 5–14. doi:10.1016/0272-7358(84)90034-5.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Malan, D. H. 1963. A Study of Brief Psychotherapy. London: Tavistock.
   Google Scholar
• McWilliams, N. 2011. Psychoanalytic Diagnosis: Understanding Personality Structure in the Clinical Process. 2nd ed. New York: The Guilford Press. Guilford Press.
   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
• Persano, H. L. 2005. “Psicoanálisis y psicoterapia: diagnóstico e indicaciones [Psychoanalysis and Psychotherapy: Diagnosis and Indications].” Revista de la Sociedad Argentina de Psicoanálisis 7 (8): 187–211.
   Google Scholar
• Persano, H. L., A. Ventura, and G. Weisbrot. 2011. “Utilidad del diagnóstico psicodinámico estructural en psiquiatría contemporánea: Herencia y futuro [The Utility of Structural Psychodynamic Diagnosis in Contemporary Psychiatry; Heritage and Future].” Association of Argentinian Psychiatrists, editor. Aportes a la psiquiatría argentina del siglo XXI: 217–222.
   Google Scholar
• Rodríguez Quiroga de Pereira, A., L. Bongiardino, L. Borensztein, J. C. Marengo, I. Aufenacker, and C. Mango. 2018. “Consentimiento informado: su uso y opinión entre psicoanalistas latinoamericanos [Informed Consent: Its use and the Opinion of Latin American Psychoanalysts].” Revista Caliban, Fepal 16 (2): 204–218.
   Google Scholar
• Rodriguez Quiroga, A., S. Juan, W. Sharewood, L. Bongiardino, S. I. Aufenacker, A. Crawley, C. Botero, and L. Borensztein. 2022. Multi-Centered Study: Trustworthiness of the Three-Level Model (3-LM) Part 1. International Journal of Psychoanalysis.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rodríguez Quiroga de Pereira, A., V. M. Messina, and P. A. Sansalone. 2012. “Informed Consent as a Prescription Calling for Debate Between Analysts and Researchers.” The International Journal of Psychoanalysis 93 (4): 963–980.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roussos, A. J. 2007. “El diseño de caso único en investigación en psicología clínica. Un vínculo entre la investigación y la práctica clínica [The Design of Single-Case Research in Clinical Psychology. A Link Between Research and Clinical Practice].” Revista Argentina de Clínica Psicológica XVI (3): 261–270.
   Google Scholar
• Roussos, A. J., I. Etchebarne, and V. Waizmann. 2006. “Un esquema clasificatorio para las intervenciones en psicoterapia cognitiva y psicoanalítica [A Classification Scheme for Interventions in Cognitive and Psychoanalytic Psychotherapy].” Anuario de investigaciones 13: 51–61.
   Google Scholar
• Rudolf, G., T. Grande, and C. Oberbracht. 2000. “Die Heidelberger Umstrukturierungsskala [The Heidelberg Restructuring Scale].” Psychotherapeut 45 (4): 237–246.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sampieri, R. H. 2018. Metodología de la investigación: las rutas cuantitativa, cualitativa y mixta [Research Methodology: Quantitative, Qualitative and Mixed Methods Research Design]. Distrito Federal Mexico: McGraw Hill México.
   Google Scholar
• Seitz, P. F. 1966. “The Consensus Problem in Psychoanalytic Research.” In Methods of Research in Psychotherapy, edited by L. A. Gottschalk and A. H. Auerbach, 209–225. Boston, MA: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Thomä, H., and H. Kächele. 1987. Psychoanalytic Practice. Vol. l: Principles. New York: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Tversky, A., and D. Kahneman. 1983. “Extensional Versus Intuitive Reasoning: The Conjunction Fallacy in Probability Judgment.” Psychological Review 90 (4): 293–315.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tversky, A., and D. Kahneman. 1986. “Judgment Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases.” In Judgment and Decision Making: An Interdisciplinary Reader, edited by H. A. Arkes, and K. R. Hammond, 38–55. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   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
• Wajnbuch, S., N. Bonifacino, N. Durand, L. Armando González, C. Koppittke, V. Nader, C. Peiter, A. Rodriguez Quiroga de Pereira, and G. Rouillon. 2017. “Confidencialidad, disfraz y ¿consentimiento informado? [ Confidentiality, Disguise and Informed Consent?” Revista uruguaya de Psicoanálisis 126: 129–151. http://www.bivipsi.org/wp-content/uploads/16887247201812610-1.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Waldron, S., F. Gazzillo, F. Genova, and V. Lingiardi. 2013. “Relational and Classical Elements in Psychoanalyses: An Empirical Study with Case Illustrations.” Psychoanalytic Psychology 30 (4): 567–600.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Waldron, S., S. Moscovitz, J. Lundin, F. L. Helm, J. Jemerin, and B. Gorman. 2011. “Evaluating the Outcomes of Psychotherapies: The Personality Health Index.” Psychoanalytic Psychology 28 (3): 363.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Waldron, S., R. D. Scharf, D. Hurst, S. K. Firestein, and A. Burton. 2004. “What Happens in a Psychoanalysis? A View Through the Lens of the Analytic Process Scales (APS).” The International Journal of Psychoanalysis 85 (2): 443–466.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Walfish, S., B. McAlister, P. O’Donnell, and M. J. Lambert. 2012. “An Investigation of Self-Assessment Bias in Mental Health Providers.” Psychological Reports 110 (2): 639–644.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar