Amalia X: dialogical sequence analysis as a method in theory-based single case research in psychoanalysis

In this article, Dialogical sequence analysis (DSA) is introduced as a method in theory-based single case research. The structure of article is as follows: first, we will describe briefly the historical background of single case studies and their position as the foundation of psychoanalytic knowledge formation. Secondly, we will describe through Amalia X’s case how one psychoanalytic ‘specimen case’ has been used as a cornerstone for a comprehensive psychoanalytic process research model, the so called ‘Ulm model’. Amalia X is one of the most studied single cases internationally also outside psychoanalytic process study field. Thirdly, we will introduce the central theory and practice of DSA. Fourthly, in the last section of our article, we will show in practice how DSA can be used in the analysis of Amalia’s dream in the session 152.     

Matching Patient and Therapist Anaclitic–Introjective Personality Configurations Matters for Psychotherapy Outcomes

Decades of psychotherapy research suggest that patient–therapist match accounts for outcome beyond single patient or therapist variables. This study examines the associations between different patterns of patient–therapist matching (in terms of orientation on relatedness or self-definition) and outcomes at termination of psychoanalytic psychotherapy with young adults. Thirty-three patients and their therapists were classified as predominately anaclitic or introjective at baseline. Patients in the convergent patient–therapist dyads (both anaclitic or both introjective) showed significantly greater symptom reduction and increased developmental levels of representations of mother than patients in the complementary dyads (opposite personality configurations). Moreover, convergent patient–therapist match was connected with larger effect sizes on all outcome measures and lower proportion of non-improved patients. These findings suggest the importance of the therapists’ early adjusting their orientation on relatedness or self-definition to their patients’ predominant personality configuration in order to enhance treatment outcomes.     

“Just Carbon”: Ideas About Graphene Risks by Graphene Researchers and Innovation Advisors

Graphene is a nanomaterial with many promising and innovative applications, yet early studies indicate that graphene may pose risks to humans and the environment. According to ideas of responsible research and innovation, all relevant actors should strive to reduce risks related to technological innovations. Through semi-structured interviews, we investigated the idea of graphene as a risk (or not) held by two types of key actors: graphene researchers and innovation advisors at universities, where the latter are facilitating the movement of graphene from the laboratory to the marketplace. The most common idea found is that graphene is not a risk due to, e.g., low toxicity, low amounts produced/used, and its similarity to harmless materials (being “just carbon”). However, some researchers and advisors also say that graphene is a risk, e.g., under certain conditions or due to a lack of risk-related information. We explain the co-existence of these seemingly contradictory ideas through (1) the semantic ambiguity of the word risk and (2) a risk/no-risk rhetoric, where risks are mentioned rhetorically only to be disregarded as manageable or negligible. We suggest that some of the ideas held by the researchers and innovation advisors constitute a challenge to responsible research and innovation regarding graphene. At the same time, we acknowledge the dilemma that the discourse of responsible innovation creates for the actors: denying graphene risks makes them irresponsible due to a lack of risk awareness, while affirming graphene risks makes them irresponsible due to their everyday engagement in graphene development. We therefore recommend more research into what researchers and innovation advisors should do in practice in order to qualify as responsible.     

PLS model building: A multivariate approach to personality test data

The aim of this study was to demonstrate how personality test data can be plotted with a multivariate method known as Partial Least Squares of Latent Structures (PLS). The basic methodology behind PLS modeling is presented and the example demonstrates how a PLS model of personality test data can be used for diagnostic prediction. Principles for validating the models are also presented. The conclusion is that PLS modeling appears to be a powerful method for extracting clinically relevant information from complex personality test data matrixes. It could be used as a complement to more hard modeling methods in the process of examining a new area of interest.     

Effectiveness of an Individualized Case Formulation-Based CBT for Non-responding Youths with Anxiety Disorders

The study examined the effectiveness of an individualized case formulation-based cognitive behavior therapy (CBT) for youths (9–17 years) with anxiety disorders and their parents after unsuccessful treatment with a manualized group CBT program (the Cool Kids). Out of 106 participant youths assessed at a 3-month follow-up after manualized CBT, 24 were classified as non-responders on the Clinical Global Impression-Improvement scale (CGI-I), and 14 of 16 non-responders with anxiety as their primary complaint accepted an offer for additional individual family CBT. The treatment was short-term (M sessions = 11.14) and based on a revised case formulation that was presented to and agreed upon by the families. At post-treatment, nine youths (64.3 %) were classified as responders on the CGI-I and six (42.9 %) were free of all anxiety diagnoses, while at the 3-month follow-up 11 (78.6 %) had responded to treatment and nine (64.3 %) had remitted from all anxiety diagnoses. Large effect sizes from pre- to post-individualized treatment were found on youths’ anxiety symptoms, self-reported (d = 1.05) as well as mother-reported (d = .81). There was further progress at the 3-month follow-up, while treatment gains remained stable from post-treatment to the 1-year follow-up. Results indicate that non-responders to manualized group CBT for youth anxiety disorders can be helped by additional CBT targeting each family’s specific needs.