Objective: How are collaborative interactions associated with clients' progress in therapy? This study addressed this question, by assessing the quality of therapeutic collaboration and comparing it passage by passage with the clients' assimilation of problematic experiences in two cases of major depression treated with Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, one recovered and one improved-but-not-recovered.
Method: We used the Therapeutic Collaboration Coding System to code collaborative work and the Assimilation of Problematic Experiences Scale (APES) to rate clients' progress. In both cases, for the distribution of specific collaborative therapeutic exchanges, we tested for the difference of empirical means between lower and higher APES levels.
Results: Both cases progress in APES, but in contrast with Annie (Improved-but-not-recovered), Kate (Recovered) achieved higher levels of change in last sessions. In addition, we found significant differences in the types of collaborative therapeutic exchanges associated with lower and higher APES levels.
Conclusion: Ambivalent therapeutic exchanges distinguished the recovered case from the not recovered case highlighting a source of difficulties in facilitating therapeutic change in CBT. In addition, observations in these cases supported the theoretical suggestion that supporting interventions would be better accepted at lower APES levels, whereas challenging interventions would be better accepted at higher APES levels.
Keywords: assimilation of problematic experiences; case study; cognitive-behavior therapy; depression; therapeutic collaboration.