PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

R R Dies

Publications and source records attributed to R R Dies.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2001

Psychological testing and psychological assessment. A review of evidence and issues.

This article summarizes evidence and issues associated with psychological assessment. Data from more than 125 meta-analyses on test validity and 800 samples examining multimethod assessment suggest 4 general conclusions: (a) Psychological test validity is strong and compelling, (b) psychological test validity is comparable to medical test validity, (c) distinct assessment methods provide unique sources of information, and (d) clinicians who rely exclusively on interviews are prone to incomplete understandings. Following principles for optimal nomothetic research, the authors suggest that a multimethod assessment battery provides a structured means for skilled clinicians to maximize the validity of individualized assessments. Future investigations should move beyond an examination of test scales to focus more on the role of psychologists who use tests as helpful tools to furnish patients and referral sources with professional consultation.

Diagnosis, Differential↗
PubMed1994

Intensive analysis of therapeutic factors and outcome in long-term inpatient groups.

Two long-term analytic inpatient groups comprised of severely disturbed neurotic and personality disordered patients were intensively investigated through process ratings and therapist and patient reports with regard to five therapeutic factors: cohesiveness, self-disclosure, feedback, interpersonal learning-output, and family re-enactment. The process variables were correlated with outcome assessments at 12 and 18 months following treatment. The study applied a single case (group) approach with replication to cross-validate the findings from one group to the next. Results demonstrated that all five therapeutic factors were meaningfully associated with clinical improvement. Although different treatment groups may generate unique psychological climates for producing change, the findings suggest that group cohesiveness is an important ingredient for effective group process to occur. The multimethod, multiperspective nature of this study lends considerable credence to the findings, despite the small sample size.

Adult↗
PubMed1993

The role of evaluation in clinical practice: overview and group treatment illustration.

A variety of intrinsic and extrinsic factors exert pressure on clinicians and researchers to forge a more effective alliance in their mutual efforts to understand treatment process and outcome. The authors provide a general framework and a specific group-therapy model to demonstrate how research measures can facilitate this integration and thereby improve the quality of service delivery. We divide treatment into four phases: negotiation, retention, enhancement, and evaluation, and illustrate how psychotherapists can use research instruments to overcome problems at each stage of intervention.

Humans↗
PubMed1993

Writing for publication: overcoming common obstacles.

This article presents the results of a survey of recent authors in the International Journal of Group Psychotherapy who were asked to identify (a) the three most difficult obstacles they encountered when publishing their first article, (b) three types of resources that were most helpful when preparing their manuscript for publication, and (c) advice they would offer to authors who are planning their first paper for submission to a mental health journal. Common problems in manuscripts submitted for editorial review are also highlighted, based on an analysis of 150 letters mailed to authors whose papers were rejected or accepted pending revision. The goal of the present article is to provide guidelines for how to publish successfully.

Authorship↗
PubMed1992

Models of group psychotherapy: sifting through confusion.

This editorial introduces a series of articles by leading proponents of the ten major models of group psychotherapy to appear in the International Journal of Group Psychotherapy. These theoretical contributions will be published throughout 1992 as a dedication to the American Group Psychotherapy Association's (AGPA) 50th anniversary. In the present article, the author reports results from a recent survey of senior clinicians within AGPA who expressed their opinions about the central issues that practitioners should understand during the working phase of group treatments. Statistical comparisons among action-oriented, interpersonal, and psychodynamic respondents to the questionnaire revealed striking differences in how therapeutic interventions were conceptualized. These findings are outlined as a preface to the first three articles in the series.

Cognitive Behavioral Therapy↗
PubMed1991

Process variables mediating change in intensive group therapy training.

This investigation is based on over 400 American Group Psychotherapy Association members involved in 41 intensive, two-day training experiences for mental health professionals. The participants completed a questionnaire immediately after their group sessions to evaluate the process and leadership variables that contributed to a constructive learning experience. A similar questionnaire was mailed to participants three to four months later to explore the impact of training on group interventions within their clinical practices. One third of the trainees responded to the follow-up survey. Overall, the findings suggest that successful outcomes are related to a range of group processes, such as self-disclosure, feedback, and interpersonal support, as well as personal qualities and technical expertise modeled by the leaders of the training groups. Both the immediate and delayed assessments demonstrate that the groups were regarded as highly valuable learning opportunities.

Education, Continuing↗
PubMed1990

The impact of observers on group process and content.

The observer's impact on the process and content of over fifty, two-day, intensive training groups was evaluated by leaders, members, and observers. There was general agreement across the three perspectives that the observer's influence was significant and potentially negative. The group members experienced the observer as more intrusive than did their leaders. The effects were predominantly indirect, and reflected in the content of group interactions both during and after the observer's visit. Results are discussed in terms of their clinical implications, and recommendations are made for how leaders may maximize the therapeutic potential of the observer's contributions.

Group Processes↗