Exploring interactions of improvers and deteriorators in the group therapy process: A qualitative analysis

International Journal of Group Psychotherapy

Volumn 59, Issue 2, 2009, Pages 179-197

  Hoffmann, Laura L ^a,c   Gleave, Robert L ^b   Burlingame, Gary M ^b   Jackson, Aaron P ^b  

^a VALDOSTA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b BRIGHAM YOUNG UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c Powell Hall East ^*  (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; GROUP DYNAMICS; GROUP THERAPY; HUMAN; PEER GROUP; QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS; QUESTIONNAIRE; RATING SCALE; REINFORCEMENT;

ADULT; FEMALE; HUMANS; INDIVIDUALITY; MALE; MENTAL DISORDERS; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT (HEALTH CARE); PSYCHOTHERAPY, GROUP; QUESTIONNAIRES; TIME FACTORS; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 65749109809     PISSN: 00207284     EISSN: 00207284     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1521/ijgp.2009.59.2.179     Document Type: Article

References (28)

1. Bednar, R. L., & Kaul, T. (1994). Experiential group research. In S. L. Garfield & A. E. Bergin (Eds.), Handbook of psychotherapy and behavior change (pp. 631-663). New York: Wiley.
2. Burlingame, G. M., Furhiman, A., & Johnson, J. E. (2002). Cohesion in group psychotherapy. In J. C. Norcross (Ed.), Psychotherapy relationships that work (pp. 71-87). New York: Oxford University Press.
3. Burlingame, G. M., Mackenzie, k. R., & Strauss, B. (2004). Small group treatment: Evidence for effectiveness and mechanisms of change. In M. J. Lambert (Ed.), Handbook of psychotherapy and behavior change (5th ed.) (pp. 647-696). New York: Wiley.
4. Davies, D. R. (2004). The effect of a feedback intervention on group process and outcome. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Brigham Young University.
5. Davies, D. R., Burlingame, G. M., Johnson, J. E., Barlow, S. H., & Gleave, R. L. (In press). The effects of a feedback intervention on group process and outcome. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 12(2), 141-154.
6. Doxee, D. J., & Kivlighan, D. M., Jr. (1994). Hindering events in interpersonal relations groups for counselor trainees. Journal of Counseling and Development, 72, 621-626.
7. Fuhriman, A., & Burlingame, G. M. (1994). Measuring small group process: A methodological application of chaos theory. Small Group Research, 25(4), 502-519.
8. Fuhriman, A., & Burlingame, G. M. (2000). The Hill Interaction Matrix: Therapy through dialogue. In A.P. Beck, and C.M. Lewis (Eds.), The process of group psychotherapy: Systems for analyzing change (pp. 135-173). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
9. Fuhriman, A., Drescher, S., & Burlingame, G. M. (1984). Conceptualizing small group process. Small Group Behavior, 15(4), 427-440.
10. Galinsky, M. J., & Schopler, J. H. (1977). Warning: Groups may be dangerous. Social Work, 22(2), 89-94.
11. Greene, L.R. (2000). Process analysis of group interaction in therapeutic groups. In A. P. Beck & C. M. Lewis (Eds.), The process of group psychotherapy: Systems for analyzing change (pp. 23-47). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
12. Hoshmand, L. L. S. T. (1989). Alternate research paradigms: A review and teaching proposal. The Counseling Psychologist, 17(1), 3-79.
13. Jackson A. P., & Patton, M. J. (1992). A hermeneutic approach to the study of values in counseling. Counseling and Values, 36, 201-209.
14. Kaplan, R. E. (1982). The dynamics of injury in encounter groups: Power, splitting, and the mismanagement of resistance. International Journal of Group Psychotherapy, 32(2), 163-187. (Pubitemid 12012351)
15. Kivligan, D. M., Jr., Multon, K. D., & Brossart, D. F. (1996). Helpful impacts in group counseling: Development of a multidimensional rating system. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 43(3), 347-355. (Pubitemid 126465092)
16. Korda, L. J., & Pancrazio, J. J. (1989). Limiting negative outcome in group practice. Journal for Specialists in Group Work, 14(2), 112-120.
17. Kvale, S. (1996). InterViews. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
18. Lambert, M. J., Burlingame, G. L., Umphress, V. J., Hansen, N. B., Vermeersch, D., Clouse, G., & Yanchar, S. C. (1996). The reliability and validity of the Outcome Questionnaire. Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, 3, 106-116. (Pubitemid 126696618)
19. Lambert, M.J., & Gregersen, A., Burlingame, G.M. (2004). The Outcome Questionnaire. In M. Maruish (Ed.), The use of psychological tests for treatment planning and outcome assessment (3rd ed) (Vol. 3, pp. 191-234). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
20. Lieberman, M. A., Yalom, I. D., & Miles, M. B. (1973). Encounter groups: First facts. New York: Basic Books.
21. Mueller, R. M., Lambert, M. J., & Burlingame, G. M. (1998). Construct validity of the Outcome Questionnaire: A confirmatory factor analysis. Journal of Personality Assessment, 70(2), 248-262. (Pubitemid 28347658)
22. Packer, M. J. (1985). Hermeneutic inquiry in the study of human conduct. American Psychologist, 40(10), 1081-1093.
23. Piper, W. (1994). Client variables. In A. Fuhriman & G. M. Burlingame (Eds.), Handbook of group psychotherapy (pp. 83-113). New York: Wiley.
24. Roback, H. B. (2001). Adverse outcomes in group psychotherapy: Risk factors, prevention, and research directions. Journal of Psychotherapy Research and Practice, 9(3), 113-122.
25. Schopler, J. H., & Galinsky, M. J. (1981). When groups go wrong. Social Work, 26(5), 424-429.
26. Schwandt, T. A. (2000). Three epistemological stances for qualitative inquiry. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed.) (pp. 189-213). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
27. Smokowski, P. R., Rose, S., Todar, k., & Reardon, K. (1999). Postgroup-casualty status, group events, and leader behavior: An early look into the dynamics of damaging group experiences. Research on Social Work Practice, 9(5), 555-574.
28. Yalom, I. D. (1995). The theory and practice of group psychotherapy (4th ed.). New York: Basic Books.