An Examination of Three Methods of Psychodynamic Formulation Based on the Same Videotaped Interview

Abstract

While psychodynamic theory and therapy are approaching their centennial, the science of psychodynamics is still in an earlier developmental stage. Any scientific field generates the most controversy and excitement when it is still developing. For psychodynamic psychology this means that its basic units of observation as well as its rules for justifying clinical inference in formulating and testing dynamic hypotheses require more development. In short, we are still evaluating different methods for both discovering and validating psychodynamic propositions. This is especially true for central features of dynamic psychology, including intrapsychic conflict, relationships, and transference patterns. This report compares three different methods for making a dynamic case formulation: 1) the Core Conflictual Relationship Theme (CCRT) of Luborsky (Crits-Christoph and Luborsky 1985a,b; Luborsky 1976, 1977, 1984, and companion paper in this issue; Levine and Luborsky 1981), 2) the Plan Diagnosis (PD) method of Silberschatz, Curtis and colleagues of the Mount Zion group (Caston 1986; Curtis and Silberschatz 1986; Rosenberg et al. 1986; Curtis et al. 1988) and, 3) the Idiographic Conflict Formulation (ICF) of Perry and Cooper (1985, 1986, and companion paper in this issue). Each has a slightly different focus. The CCRT focuses on relationship patterns as the central feature of individual dynamics and transference in or out of the treatment situation. The Plan Diagnosis focuses on dynamic features related to transference, resistance and insight in therapy. The Idiographic Conflict Formulation focuses on stress and internal conflict, and the individual's adaptation to them in or out of treatment.