Professional Documents
Culture Documents
net/publication/292101575
CITATIONS READS
4 1,158
1 author:
Tracy Eells
University of Louisville
59 PUBLICATIONS 1,304 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
All content following this page was uploaded by Tracy Eells on 31 December 2018.
Resumen: Abstract:
Este trabajo plantea y responde a la pregunta acerca de This work posits and answers the question about ‘What
‘¿Qué es una formulación de caso basada en la eviden- is an evidence-based case formulation?’ It tries to shed
cia?’ Trata de arrojar luz sobre el tema proponiendo some light on the topic by proposing three key criteria
tres criterios clave, que cualquier terapeuta puede that any therapist could follow to assess a particular
tener en cuenta a la hora de valorar desde esta perspec- model of case formulation (CF), or when taking into
tiva un modelo de formulación de caso (FC) concreto, consideration his or her own practice: The first criterion
o al tomar en consideración su propia práctica: El relates to the grounding of the CF’s core hypothesis on
primero, relativo a la fundamentación de la hipótesis a theory supported by a solid and relevant evidence; the
central de la formulación en una teoría con apoyo en second criterion relates to the features of the kind of
una evidencia sólida y relevante; el segundo, relativo a reasoning, in which the clinical judgement that nurtures
las características del razonamiento en el que se basa the formulation is based; and the third criterion, that
el juicio que nutre la formulación; y el tercero, relativo relates to the extent in which a given formulation is
al grado en que el proceso de formulación se ha founded on a structured model of CF. Furthermore, the
apoyado en un sistema o modelo de FC estructurado. background of evidence-based CF as a form of Evidence-
Además, se revisan los antecedentes de la FC basada Based Practice in Psychology (EBPP) is reviewed, as
en la evidencia como parte de la Práctica Basada en la well as what constitutes appropriate evidence in CF. An
Evidencia en Psicología (PBEP), se discute qué se evidence-based, systematic framework for CF is also
considera una evidencia adecuada en FC, y se ofrece provided and explained.
un marco de trabajo sistemático y basado en la eviden- Keywords: Case Formulation, Evidence-Based
cia para esta tarea. Psychology, Psychotherapy
Palabras clave: Formulación de caso, Psicología
basada en la Evidencia, Psicoterapia
ISSN: 1130-5142 (Print) –2339-7950 (Online)
invalid. Therefore, drawing from their knowledge base and taking into account
potential systematic biases in judgment, which are discussed in the next section,
therapists might think of an evidence continuum, one end representing strong forms
and the other weaker forms. At the former end, one could imagine compelling
outcomes from empirically supported treatments, well-demonstrated and general
mechanisms underlying forms of psychopathology, powerfully predictive
epidemiological data, or well-documented and replicated findings about basic
psychological processes, for example, the age at which reliable autobiographical
memories can be formed. At the other end of the continuum one might place a
therapist’s hunches or intuitions. These might offer valuable insights that could be
tested, but in themselves might not be described by most observers as evidence-
based. Between these two end points might be included data such as psychological
test findings, remembered examples of similar cases, rating scale results, a patient’s
narrative of a relationship episode, a dream account, a thought record, a patient’s
account of automatic thinking or an assertion by the patient or therapist that a
thought is a core belief. Criteria for placing a type of evidence along the continuum
could include consistency with well-established outcome and process studies;
consistency with well-established knowledge about psychopathology, personality
development, and cognition; plausibility in terms of base rate knowledge; as well
as factors such as internal consistency, parsimony, and comprehensiveness. Of
course, obtaining the patient’s view of the formulation is also important in
evaluating it.
that we make judgments based on information that most easily comes to mind. As
applied to case formulation, the availability heuristic may lead therapists to
overvalue their own personal experience or impressions and undervalue objective,
empirical evidence. For example, a therapist may tend to agree with a patient who
compellingly asserts through tears and anger that she is the victim of satanic ritual
abuse, when other explanations are readily available and despite evidence that base
rates of such abuse are diminishingly low. Another example is the “representative
heuristic”, which is a mental shortcut based on the principle that “like goes with
like.” For example, one might infer that all victims of child sexual abuse have
borderline personality disorder and are significantly damaged in their capacity for
love and intimacy. Such a conclusion would fail to acknowledge evidence that
many – although clearly not all –victims of child sexual abuse find success in life
and love (Rind, Tromovitch, & Bauserman, 1998, 2001). Elsewhere, I describe
additional examples of heuristic thinking that can lead to errors in to psychotherapy
case formulation (Eells, 2015).
the process of regularly monitoring, testing and assessing problems and progress.
Figure 1.
Framework for Evidence-Based, Case-Formulation Guided Psychotherapy
Bibliographic references
APA Presidential Task Force on Evidence-Based Practice. (2006). Evidence-based practice in psychology.
American Psychologist, 61(4), 271-285.
Bieling, P. J., & Kuyken, W. (2003). Is cognitive case formulation science or science fiction? Clinical Psychology:
Science & Practice, 10(1), 52-69.
Eells, T. D. (2013a). The case formulation approach to psychotherapy research revisited. Pragmatic Case Studies
in Psychotherapy, 9, 426-447.
Eells, T. D. (2013b). In support of evidence-based case formulation in psychotherapy (from the perspective of a
clinician). Pragmatic Case Studies in Psychotherapy, 9, 457-467.
Eells, T. D. (2015). Psychotherapy case formulation. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association
Books.
Eells, T. D., & Lombart, K. G. (2011). Theoretical and evidence-based approaches to case formulation. In P.
Sturmey & M. McMurran (Eds.) (pp. 3-32), Forensic case formulation. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons.
Eells, T. D., Lombart, K. G., Kendjelic, E. M., Turner, L. C., & Lucas, C. (2005). The quality of psychotherapy case
formulations: A comparison of expert, experienced, and novice cognitive-behavioral and psychodynamic
therapists. Journal of Consulting & Clinical Psychology, 73(4), 579-589.
Fishman, D. B. (1999). The case for pragmatic psychology: New York, NY: New York University Press.
Fishman, D. B. (2002). From single case to data base: A new method for enhancing psychotherapy, forensic, and
other psychological practice. Applied and Preventive Psychology, 10, 275-304.
Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. New York, NY: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
Kuyken, W. (2006). Evidence-based case formulation: Is the emperor clothed? In N. Tarrier (Ed.), Case
formulation in cognitive behaviour therapy? The treatment of challenging and complex cases (pp. 12-35).
New York, NY: Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.
Kuyken, W., Padesky, C. A., & Dudley, R. (2009). Collaborative case conceptualization: Working effectively with
clients in cognitive-behavioral therapy. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Luborsky, L. (1977). Measuring a pervasive psychic structure in psychotherapy: The Core Conflictual Relationship
Theme. En N. Freedman & S. Grand (Eds.), Communicative structures and psychic structures (pp. 367-
395). New York: Plenum Press.
Luborsky, L., & Barrett, M. S. (2007). The Core Conflictual Relationship Theme: A basic case formulation method.
In T. D. Eells (Ed.), Handbook of psychotherapy case formulation. (2nd ed.) (pp. 105-135). New York:
Guilford Press.
148 Evidence-based case formulation
Luborsky, L., & Crits-Christoph, P. (1998). Understanding transference: The Core Conflictual Relationship
Theme method (2nd ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Morrison, J. (2008). The first interview (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Nathan, P. E., & Gorman, J. M. (Eds.). (2007). A guide to treatments that work (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Oxford
University Press.
Norcross, J. C. (Ed.). (2011). Psychotherapy relationships that work: Evidence-based responsiveness (2nd ed.).
New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Persons, J. B. (2008). The case formulation approach to cognitive-behavior therapy. New York, NY: Guilford
Press.
Regier, D. A., Narrow, W. E., Clarke, D. E., Kraemer, H. C., Kuramoto, S. J., Kuhl, E. A., & Kupfer, D. J. (2013).
DSM-5 Field Trials in the United States and Canada, Part II: Test-Retest Reliability of Selected Categorical
Diagnoses. The American Journal of Psychiatry, 170(1), 59-70.
Rind, B., Tromovitch, P., & Bauserman, R. (1998). A meta-analytic examination of assumed properties of child
sexual abuse using college samples. Psychological Bulletin, 124(1), 22-53.
Rind, B., Tromovitch, P., & Bauserman, R. (2001). The validity and appropriateness of methods, analyses, and
conclusions in Rind et al. (1998): a rebuttal of victimological critique from Ondersma et al. (2001) and
Dallam et al. (2001). Psychological Bulletin, 127(6), 734-758.