Agreements and differences between psychoanalysts with regard to changes observed during a treatment. A quantitative exploration using the Three-Level Model (3-LM)

References

• Ahumada, J. L. 1999. “Las lógicas y la epistemología del psicoanálisis [The logics and epistemology of psychoanalysis].” In Descubrimientos y refutaciones. La lógica de la indagación psicoanalítica [Disclosures and refutations. The logic of psychoanalytic enquiry], edited by Jorge Luis Ahumada, 43–60. Madrid: Biblioteca Nueva.
   Google Scholar
• Altmann de Litvan, M. 2015. Tiempo de cambio. Indagando las transformaciones en psicoanálisis: el Modelo de los Tres Niveles. London, UK: Karnac.
   Google Scholar
• Altmann de Litvan, M. A., R. Bernardi, and M. A. Fitzpatrick-Hanly. 2021. “Is the Three-Level Model a Clinical Research Tool?” In Clinical Research in Psychoanalysis: Theoretical Basis and Experiences Through Working Parties, edited by M. Altmann de Litvan, 171–182. Great Britain: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• American Psychiatric Association. 2014. Escala del nivel del funcionamiento de la personalidad ENFP, Manual Diagnóstico y Estadístico de los Trastornos Mentales, DSM-5]. Panamericana.
   Google Scholar
• Aslan, C. M. 2008. “Modelos Teórico–Clínicos en el Psicoanálisis Latinoamericano. [Theoretical-Clinical Models in Latin American Psychoanalysis].” Revista Latinoamericana de Psicoanálisis, 15–22.
   Google Scholar
• Azcona, M., and J. Zurita. 2022. “Estrategias de investigación en psicoanálisis: una revisión metodológica [Investigative Strategies in Psychoanalysis: A Methodological Review].” In Metodología en acción. Aportes a la investigación psicológica con humanos [Methodology in action. Contributions to human psychological investigation], edited by M. J. Sánchez Vazquez, 25–58. La Plata: Edulp.
   Google Scholar
• Bernardi, R. 2001. “La necesidad de controversias en Psicoanálisis. Los debates sobre M. Klein y J. Lacan en el Río de la Plata.” Psicoanálisis. Focos y aperturas 44–73.
   Google Scholar
• Bernardi, R. 2003. “¿Qué tipo de argumentación utilizamos en psicoanálisis? [What kind of argumentation do we use in psychoanalysis].” Psicoanálisis 25: 255–269.
   Google Scholar
• Bernardi, R. 2015. “El modelo de los tres niveles para observar las transformaciones del paciente (3-LM).” In Tiempo de Cambio. Indagando las transformaciones en psicoanálisis: el modelo de los tres niveles, edited by Marina Altmann de Litvan, 3–34. Karnac.
   Google Scholar
• Bernardi, R. 2016. “Investigación conceptual en psicoanálisis: ¿tenemos conceptos universales o términos multívocos? [Conceptual research in psychoanalysis: are there universal concepts or multivocal terms?].” Revista de Psicoanálisis 73: 165–178.
   Google Scholar
• Bernardi, R. 2017. “A Common Ground in Clincial Discussion Groups: Intersubjective Resonance and Implicit Operational Theories.” The International Journal of Psychoanalysis, 1291–1309. doi:10.1111/1745-8315.12633.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bernardi, R., B. Varela, D. Miller, R. Zytner, L. de Sousa, and R. Oyenard. 2016. La formulación psicodinámica de caso. Su valor para la práctica clínica [Psychodynamic case formulation: Its value for clinical practice]. Montevideo: Grupo Magro.
   Google Scholar
• Bohleber, W. 2018. “The use of Public and of Private Implicit Theories in the Clinical Situation.” In Putting Theory to Work. How Are Theories Actually Used in Practice?, edited by J. Canestri, 1–22. New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Canestri, J. 2018. “Conclusions.” In Putting Theory to Work. How are Theories Actually Used in Practice?, edited by J. Canestri, 157–184. New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Castillo, J. A., y J. Mercadal. 2020. Psicoterapia psicoanalítica: investigación, evaluación y práctica clínica [Psychoanalytic psychotherapy: research, evaluation and clinical practice]. Herder Editorial.
   Google Scholar
• Coderch, J. 2006. Pluralidad y diálogo en psicoanálisis. [Plurality and dialogue in psychoanalysis] Herder.
   Google Scholar
• Cooper, A. M. 2008. “American Psychoanalysis Today: A Plurality of Orthodoxies.” The Journal of the American Academy of Psychoanalysis and Dynamic Psychiatry 36 (2): 235–253. https://doi.org/10.1521/jaap.2008.36.2.235
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Dahl, H., H. Kächele, and H. Thomä 2012. Psychoanalytic Process Research Strategies. Berlín: Springer Science & Business Media.
   Google Scholar
• Eells, T. D., ed. 2011. Handbook of Psychotherapy Case Formulation. New York: Guilford Press.
   Google Scholar
• Faimberg, H. 1996. “Listening to Listening.” The International Journal of Psychoanalysis 77: 667–677.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fleiss, J. L. 1971. “Measuring Nominal Scale Agreement among Many Raters.” Psychological Bulletin 76 (5): 378. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0031619
   Google Scholar
• Fonagy P. 2002. An Open Door Review of Outcome Studies in Psychoanalysis. 2nd ed. London: International Psychoanalytical Association.
   Google Scholar
• Fonagy, P. 2006. “The Failure of Practice to Inform Theory and the Role of Implicit Theory in Bridging the Transmission gap.” In Psychoanalysis: From Practice to Theory, edited by J. Canestri, 69–86. West Sussex, England: John Wiley & Sons.
   Google Scholar
• Garbarino, A., M. Luzardo, and A. Corti. 2019. Agreement Among Clinical Iudgments of Psychoanalysts Regarding the Effects of Unconscious Mental Processes of Change During Long Periods of Psychoanalysis. Research Granted Through an IPA Research Grant, International Psychoanalytical Association.
   Google Scholar
• Green, A. 2000. “Response to Robert S. Wallerstein.” In Clinical and Observational Psychoanalytic Research: Roots of a Controversy. André Green & Daniel Stern, edited by J. Sandler, A.-M. Sandler, and R. Davies, 32–37. London and New York: Karnac.
   Google Scholar
• Green, A. 2010. El pensamiento clínico. Buenos Aires: Amorrortu.
   Google Scholar
• Hanly, C. 2018. “Theoretical and Clinical Reflections on Public and Private Theories.” In Putting Theory to Work. How Are Theories Actually Used in Practice?, edited by J. Canestri, 39–56. New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Hanly, M., M. Altmann de Litvan, and R. Bernardi, eds. 2021. Change Through Time in Psychoanalysis: Transformations and Interventions, the Three Level Model. New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Hanly, M., R. Bernardi, and M. Altmann de Litvan. 2021. “Guidelines for Organizing 3-LM Groups.” In Change Through Time in Psychoanalysis, edited by C. Hanly, M. Altmann de Litvan, and R. Bernardi, 309–333. Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Hernández Sampieri, R., C. Fernández Collado, M. Baptista Lucio, and P. del. 2014. Metodología de la Investigación. 6th. ed. [Research methodology]. Mexico City: McGraw-Hill/Interamericana.
   Google Scholar
• Hinshelwood, R. D. 2013. Research on the Couch: Single-Case Studies, Subjectivity and Psychoanalytic Knowledge. New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Hunter, V. 1994. Psychoanalysts Talk. New York: Guilford Press.
   Google Scholar
• Jimenez, J. P. 2004. “Validez y validación del método psicoanalítico (alegato sobre la necesidad del pluralismo metodológico y pragmático en psicoanálisis). [Validity and Validation of the Psychoanalytic Method (Argument in Defence of the Need for Methodological and Pragmatic Pluralism in Psychoanalysis).” Revista Aperturas Psicoanalíticas 18. https://aperturas.org/articulo.php?articulo=0000309#contenido
   Google Scholar
• Kächele, H., J. Schachter, and H. Thomä. 2011. From Psychoanalytic Narrative to Empirical Single Case Research: Implications for Psychoanalytic Practice. New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Landis, J. R., y G. G. Koch. 1977. “The Measurement of Observer Agreement for Categorical Data.” Biometrics 33 (1): 159–174. https://doi.org/10.2307/2529310
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leichsenring, F., A. Abbass, M. Hilsenroth, F. Leweke, P. Luyten, J. Keefe, … C. Steinert. 2017. “Biases in Research: Risk Factors for non-Replicability in Psychotherapy and Pharmacotherapy Research.” Psychological Medicine 47 (6): 1000–1011. https://doi.org/10.1017/S003329171600324X
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leivobich de Duarte, A., V. Huerin, A. Roussos, G. Rutsztein, and F. Torricelli. 2002. “Empirical Studies on Clinical Inference: Similarities and Differences in the Clinical Work of Psychotherapist with Different Theoretical Approaches and Levels of Experience.” In An Open Door Review of Outcome Studies in Psychoanalysis (2nd Revised Ed.), edited by P. Fonagy, 201–204. London: International Psychoanalytic Association.
   Google Scholar
• Leuzinger-Bohleber, M., M. Solms, and S. E. Arnold. 2020. Outcome Research and the Future of Psychoanalysis: Clinicians and Researchers in Dialogue. New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Leykin, Y., and R. J. DeRubeis. 2009. “Allegiance in Psychotherapy Outcome Research: Separating Association from Bias.” Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice 16 (1): 54–65. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2850.2009.01143.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lingiardi, V., y N. McWilliams. 2017. Psychodynamic Diagnostic Manual: PDM-2. 2nd ed. New York: Guilford Press.
   Google Scholar
• Muller, F. 2008. “Psychotherapy in Argentina: Theoretical Orientation and Clinical Practice.” Journal for Psychotherapy Integration 18: 410–420. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014318
   Google Scholar
• Muller, F., and W. Hirst. 2010. “Resistance to the Influences of Others: Limits to the Formation of a Collective Memory Through Conversational Remembering.” Applied Cognitive Psychology 24 (5): 608–625. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1572
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Muller, F., and M. C. Palavezzatti. 2015. “Orientación teórica y práctica clínica: Los psicoterapeutas de Buenos Aires [Theoretical and Practical Clinical Guidance: Psychotherapists Buenos Aires].” Revista Argentina de Clínica Psicológica 24 (1): 13–21.
   Google Scholar
• OPD Task Force. 2008. Operalionalized Psychodynamic Diagnosis (OPD-2) Manual of Diagnosis and Treatment Planning. Ohio: Hogrefe.
   Google Scholar
• Pichon-Rivière, E. 1998. El Proceso Grupal. Del Psicoanálisis a la Psicología Social [The Group Process. From Psychoanalysis to Social Psychology]. Buenos Aires: Ediciones Nueva Visión.
   Google Scholar
• Pulver, S. E. 1987. “How Theory Shapes Technique: Perspectives on a Clinical Study.” Psychoanalytic Inquiry 7 (2): 141–299. https://doi.org/10.1080/07351698709533666
   Google Scholar
• Rodríguez Quiroga de Pereira, A., S. Aufenacker, A. Crawley, L. Borensztein, C. Botero, S. Juan, and L. Bongiardino. 2022. “A Multicentre Study: Comparison of 3-LM Group Output and Therapeutic Outcome Measures. Adding to the Trustworthiness of the 3-LM?” The International Journal of Psychoanalysis. in press
   Web of Science ®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 Psychoanalysis 99 (6): 1327–1352. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207578.2018.1533374
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roussos, A., and A. Leibovich de Duarte. 2002. “La incidencia de la Actividad Referencial en el proceso de formulación de inferencias clínicas en psicoterapeutas de distintos marcos teóricos. [The Incidence of Referential Activity in the Process of Formulating Clinical Inferences in Psychotherapists from Different Theoretical Frameworks.].” Intersubjetivo 1: 45–63.
   Google Scholar
• Sandler, J. 1983. “Reflections on Some Relations Between Psychoanalytic Concepts and Psychoanalytic Practice.” International Journal of Psychoanalysis 64: 35–45.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tuckett, D. 1994. “The Conceptualisation and Communication of Clinical Facts in Psychoanalysis—Foreword.” The International Journal of Psychoanalysis 75: 865–870.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tuckett, D. 2008. “Reflection and Evolution: Developing the two-Step Method.” In Psychoanalysis Comparable and Incomparable, edited by D. Tuckett, R. Basile, D. Birkstead-Breen, T. Bohm, P. Denis, A. Ferro, and J. Chubert, 132–166. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Vermote, R. 2021. “Clinical Psychoanalytic Research with the Working Party Method: State of the Art.” In Clinical Research in Psychoanalysis, edited by M. Altmann de Litvan, 296–311. Great Britain: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Viguera, A. 2019. “El caso de Silvia Bleichmar: una recepción argentina del psicoanálisis francés contemporáneo. [The Case of Silvia Bleichmar: An Argentinean Reception of Contemporary French Psychoanalysis.].” Palavras. Revista de epistemología, metodología y ética del psicoanálisis 5: 1–37.
   Google Scholar
• Wallerstein, R. S. 2005. “¿Diálogo o ilusión? ¿Y cómo seguimos a partir de aquí? Respuesta a André Green.” Psicoanálisis 28 (3): 667–675.
   Google Scholar
• Wallerstein, R. S. 2006. “¿Será el pluralismo psicoanalítico un estado duradero de nuestra disciplina?” Psicoanálisis 28 (3): 649–655.
   Google Scholar
• Zukerfeld, R., and R. Zonis Zukerfeld. 2011. “Sobre la cultura psicoanalítica: alegato por un pluralismo riguroso [On Psychoanalytic Culture: The Argument for Rigorous Pluralism].” Revista Internacional Aperturas Psicoanalíticas 68: 257–282.
   Google Scholar