Talk:Psychotherapy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search



I propose a small addition to a section[edit]

I'm an undergraduate student currently enrolled in a Abnormal Psychology course. I have found a simple yet potentially effective addition for the "Criticisms and questions regarding effectiveness" section. As the section concludes, and before it moves onto the following "The therapeutic relationship" section there is the following sentence: "Common factors theory asserts it is precisely the factors common to the most psychotherapies that make any psychotherapy successful: this is the quality of the therapeutic relationship." I wish to make a simple addition of common factors and thus the edited version of the sentence will be the following: "Common factors theory asserts it is precisely the factors common to the most psychotherapies that make any psychotherapy successful: this is the quality of the therapeutic relationship, interpretation of problem, and the confrontation of emotional emotions." This information is current with the latest version of Nolen-Hoeksema's Abnormal Psychology Sixth Edition, which will be cited. Thoughts? --Wikigator14 (talk) 18:51, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Psychotherapy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:23, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Citation updated, as the link was dead. Drdaviss (talk) 03:47, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Odd definition[edit]

"change and overcome problems in desired ways" reads very strangely. To "change problems in desired ways" makes no sense. Shouldn't the definition be "change behavior and overcome problems in desired ways"? 203.80.61.102 (talk) 20:57, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

There are two separate ideas: "to help a person change" and (to help a person) "overcome problems in desired ways". The first sentence makes sense to me when read as a whole, and the sense is further clarified by the subsequent sentence:

Psychotherapy is the use of psychological methods, particularly when based on regular personal interaction, to help a person change and overcome problems in desired ways. Psychotherapy aims to improve an individual's well-being and mental health, to resolve or mitigate troublesome behaviors, beliefs, compulsions, thoughts, or emotions, and to improve relationships and social skills.
— Psychotherapy 18:49, 24 August 2017‎ (UTC)

One could substitute words here or there according to one's personal taste, but the basic idea seems sound. I don't think it is necessary to add the word "behavior" as suggested above, because as the second sentence notes, the object of change may be, e.g., beliefs or emotions too, which are not widely classified as "behavior" (except perhaps by some radical behaviorists?). I would be more inclined to remove the phrase "in desired ways" as redundant and not always true, since a person who enters counseling or psychotherapy may not always, at first, evince much desire to change or overcome problems: see, e.g., motivational interviewing. Biogeographist (talk) 01:23, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Counselor and client safety[edit]

The following text was added by an IP editor in two places in a way that broke existing ref tags and did not conform to the existing citation style (WP:CITEVAR). I am pasting it below in case anyone cares to comment or salvage any content from it. Biogeographist (talk) 13:03, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Counselor and client safety

Crisis is a situation or an event that may face an individual or a group. They may be unable to tolerate or handle the situation because of their personal inadequacies or because of limited resources. Therefore crisis intervention is the immediate psychological help accorded to victims by a professional as suggested by Roberts, (2005). Its aim is to help the victims in returning back to their pre-crisis situation and to restore an equilibrium. This paper attempts to explain the counselor and client safety during crisis, the key elements of risk and the strategies for managing the risks.

Counselor safety is an issue that has previously been undermined, but it has now become a disturbing issue. Kress, Protivnak, & Sadlak, (2008) acknowledged that all counselors are susceptible to working with violent clients at one point in their careers. Predicting violence may be difficult but a counselor may come up with ways if identifying potentially violent clients. Clients with a history of drug and substance abuse and those with a history of violence are more likely to go into that route. Some can also provide hints that they may be violent. As therapists we should come up with safety measures to protect ourselves when working with potentially violent clients. Assessing client lethality and seeking supervision can help in ensuring both the counselor and client safety. Setting therapeutic boundaries can reduce the chances for occurrence of violence.

Similarly, there are crisis situations where the client’s safety needs to be assessed. In case of a crisis such as terrorist attack, a therapist can assess whether a client is safe or if there is need for medical attention. When working with suicidal clients, victims of domestic violence and homicide clients, it is important for us to ensure their safety. In such situations, it is the therapist’s responsibility to ensure clients safety. Hence a collaboration between client and counselor should help in coming up with safety plans which are reasonable and valid. In a situation where a client does not seem to be imposing danger to self or to people around, it is still the responsibility of the therapist to make sure that the client is safe and comfortable( Kavan, Guck, & Barone, 2006). When initiating a therapeutic relationship, a counselor should inform a client about duty to warn and also about instances when confidentiality may be breached.

The key elements of risk can be when a client’s life is threatened or if a client has a potential of being lethal. A repeated pattern of domestic violence can also be an element of risk (Kress, Protivnak & Sadlak, 2008). Furthermore, clients engaging in risky behaviors or those abusing drugs may have their safety impaired. A client may be at risk if the law enforcement fails to follow up on a domestic violence case. Subsequently, a counselor may be at risk when dealing with violent and psychotic clients. There should be plans put in place to protect both client and therapist if their safety is threatened.

Safety measures should be put in place to help in risk management. James & Gilliland, (2012) suggested that a battered woman scale should be used because it has the ability of measuring traits that may be difficult to measure. Safety measures that can be used include establishing a relationship with the police for them to help during risk situations. Therapists chair should be positioned close to the door for a clear escape path if need be. The therapy room and the parking lot should be well lit. Moreover, a therapist should not chase after a client who decides to walk out of a session. A therapist should also come up with a standard plan for dealing with violent clients.

References
  • James, R., & Gilliland, B. (2012). Crisis intervention strategies. Nelson Education.
  • Kavan, M. G., Guck, T. P., & Barone, E. J. (2006). A practical guide to crisis management. American family physician, 74(7), 1159-1164.
  • Kress, V., Protivnak, J., & Sadlak, L. (2008). Counseling clients involved with violent intimate partners: The mental health counselor's role in promoting client safety. Journal of Mental Health Counseling, 30(3), 200-210.
  • Roberts, A. R. (Ed.). (2005). Crisis intervention handbook: Assessment, treatment, and research. Oxford university press.

Citation style[edit]

Boghog recently made many changes to references in this article, many of which I have reverted: per Wikipedia:Citation templates, the last1, first1, last2, first2, ... fields are correct; removing information such as first names and journal wikilinks from citation templates is unhelpful, and removing such info from only a few references is inconsistent. It would be good if this article had a consistent citation style, per WP:CITEVAR, but until such a style is established for this article per consensus, do not remove information from citations. Biogeographist (talk) 14:27, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Biogeographist. I am quite willing to followup any of my edits with additional edits to fix any problems and to make things completely consistent. One of the problems with this article is that it has an inconsistent citation style with respect to first authors. Some times first names are spelled out in full, sometimes first initials with periods are used, and sometimes initials without periods. One option to replace all the first names with initials without periods using either |vauthors= or leave "last1, first1, last2, first2, ..." in place and add |name-list-format=vanc. Or we can leave it in its current inconsistent state. Boghog (talk) 15:55, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
@Boghog: It is not a good idea to remove full author names from citation templates because the extra information provided by full author names is useful in several ways: it disambiguates authors with the same last name and initials; it provides a more complete identity of the authors for people unfamiliar with the literature (and many readers of Wikipedia are likely to be less familiar with the literature than specialists); it provides more search results when users search for full names.
If an article's citation style calls for last name and initials only, it is better to use the name-list-format field of the citation template to set the display format of the names, rather than to strip the first names from the citation template. Another important reason to keep full names in citation templates is because citation templates generate COinS data for automated citation harvesting by reference management software; with full names included, the data harvested from Wikipedia will be more complete. Think of citation templates as database records: we want the most complete database record possible, and fields such as name-list-format (and the other display options parameters) control how the data is displayed in the rendered page.
Regarding the citation style of this article, I am partial to displaying full names due to the value of the information that I mentioned above. I think of initials as a convention used to save space (and thereby save on printing costs) in print media, or in content that is published in print and other formats. Wikipedia is not distributed in print, so there is no need to use initials to save on printing costs. Biogeographist (talk) 16:09, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for your very reasoned reply. I think your strongest but also weakest argument is providing the most complete database possible. It is generally acknowledged that Wikipedia itself is not a reliable source. Therefore IMHO, it is a mistake to harvest Wikipedia COinS data since it may be subject vandalism or honest mistakes. One really should go back to a reliable secondary source of bibliographic information such as PubMed. Hence one only needs to harvest database identifiers such as PMID and then using these identifiers, recreate the citation from scratch using the numerous tools available for this purpose. The most important citation information are the links back to the original source. Second is the title which gives a sense what the citation is about. Third in importance are authors and journal names that gives an impression about the reliability the of source for specialists that are familiar with the field. For the general reader, authors names, whether abbreviated or not, will not be very meaningful. If someone is really interested in particular author, one should go back to the original source where the author affiliation and full name of the author are displayed.
I do not have any strong feeling on how the citations are formatted in this particular article, so I will not make any further edits to this article. Boghog (talk) 19:08, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
@Boghog: That's an interesting counterargument, but there are some weaknesses in what you have said too.
First, I would not cite WP:WINARS, as you did, to argue that Wikipedia editors should not be trying to include the most complete citation data possible in citation templates because Wikipedia users should not be using citation data from Wikipedia. That reminds me of the saying, "Don't vote! It only encourages them!", where the voters are Wikipedia editors improving citation data, and "them" are the users of Wikipedia. (OK, this analogy doesn't work—but it's funny.) As an editor, I take pride in my ability to add reliable citation data to Wikipedia, and I believe that the articles wherein I've been able to thoroughly vet the citation data (not this article, obviously!) contain accurate, reliable bibliographic data. Furthermore, the bibliographic data in those articles may be more complete than the corresponding data in PubMed in the case of references for which PubMed does not have, for example, full names, or DOIs. (I've noticed in my research that some PubMed records are missing DOIs for articles that have DOIs on the publisher's site.) WP:WINARS is important to keep in mind, but it doesn't serve as support for the argument that Wikipedia editors should not be trying to include the most complete citation data possible in citation templates.
Second, your assertion that Wikipedia users don't care about author names disregards the variability in the subject matter of Wikipedia articles and in the purposes of Wikipedia users. The importance of authors may vary by field: in the humanities, where the subject matter is often personal experiences and opinions, who authored a source is often extremely important; in the empirical sciences, where the subject matter is often impersonal data and models, who authored a source is less important. Psychotherapy straddles the two cultures of the humanities and empirical sciences; many researchers are thoroughly in the empirical science camp, but many clinicians are mostly in the humanities camp, and some people are both researchers and clinicians (by "researchers" I mean large-n researchers; clinicians of course are always doing n=1 research, which can be aggregated into large-n research but typically isn't). Biogeographist (talk) 22:22, 25 April 2018 (UTC)