Article

The treatment of dissociative identity disorder with cognitive analytic therapy: experimental evidence of sudden gains.

Department of Clinical Psychology, Keresforth Centre, Barnsley S70 6RS, United Kingdom.
Journal of Trauma & Dissociation (Impact Factor: 1.72). 02/2005; 6(3):55-81. DOI: 10.1300/J229v06n03_03
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The central aim of this study was to assess the effectiveness of cognitive analytic therapy (CAT) with a patient presenting with DID. The methodology employed an A/B single case experimental design with six-months continuous follow-up in seven experimental measures. A and B represent the assessment of seven dissociative experimental variables under two conditions: baseline (A) and treatment (B). Treatment consisted of 24 sessions of CAT with four follow-up sessions, which is standard within the CAT model for personality disorder patients. A battery of measures of general psychological functioning was also completed at assessment, termination, and follow-up. During treatment the intensity of a range of dissociative symptoms was observed to be reduced, with sudden gains evident due to specific CAT interventions in specific dissociative symptoms. The long-term effectiveness of the intervention was established by the illustration of either continued stability or continued improvement in experimental variables across the follow-up period. Analysis of the general measures illustrates clinically significant change across a variety of robust psychometric measures. The study illustrates the utility of single-case approaches with dissociative disorders and the potential for utilizing CAT generally with such presentations.

3 Bookmarks
 · 
108 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This study reviews the quality of the extant outcome evidence for cognitive analytic therapy (CAT) to inform clinical practice and to stimulate a future CAT research strategy. An electronic search identified CAT efficacy and effectiveness studies and these were subject to systematic review. The methodological quality of studies meeting inclusion criteria were appraised using two validated research study quality checklists and studies were fitted to an established model of psychotherapy evaluation. Twenty-five outcome studies met the inclusion criteria, including five randomized controlled trials. The CAT evidence base is predominated by small-scale practice-based studies, in typically complex and severe clinical populations - 44% were focal to the treatment of personality disorder. Although the quality of extant CAT evidence is generally sound (52% of studies were high quality), the depth and breadth of the evidence base is currently limited. Where comparisons with other modalities are available, CAT appears largely equivocal. Cognitive analytic therapy is a popular and promising intervention for complex presentations. However, the evidence base currently lacks wider credibility due to having largely bypassed the rigours of the controlled phase of the hourglass model of psychotherapy evaluation. There is a particular need for further CAT outcome research with common mental health problems. CAT can be an effective intervention across a range of mental health difficulties. Consider a 24-session CAT contract for those patients presenting with complex and severe difficulties. Practice research networks could make a significant contribution to the CAT evidence base.
    Psychology and psychotherapy. 03/2014;
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Objective: Some claim that treatment for dissociative identity disorder (DID) is harmful. Others maintain that the available data support the view that psychotherapy is helpful. Method: We review the empirical support for both arguments. Results: Current evidence supports the conclusion that phasic treatment consistent with expert consensus guidelines is associated with improvements in a wide range of DID patients' symptoms and functioning, decreased rates of hospitalization, and reduced costs of treatment. Research indicates that poor outcome is associated with treatment that does not specifically involve direct engagement with DID self-states to repair identity fragmentation and to decrease dissociative amnesia. Conclusions: The evidence demonstrates that carefully staged trauma-focused psychotherapy for DID results in improvement, whereas dissociative symptoms persist when not specifically targeted in treatment. The claims that DID treatment is harmful are based on anecdotal cases, opinion pieces, reports of damage that are not substantiated in the scientific literature, misrepresentations of the data, and misunderstandings about DID treatment and the phenomenology of DID. Given the severe symptomatology and disability associated with DID, iatrogenic harm is far more likely to come from depriving DID patients of treatment that is consistent with expert consensus, treatment guidelines, and current research.
    Psychiatry Interpersonal & Biological Processes 06/2014; 77(2):169-89. · 3.18 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The purpose of this study was to assess the scientific and etiological status of dissociative identity disorder (DID) by examining cases published from 2000 to 2010. In terms of scientific status, DID is a small but ongoing field of study. The review yielded 21 case studies and 80 empirical studies, presenting data on 1171 new cases of DID. A mean of 9 articles, each containing a mean of 17 new cases of DID, emerged each year. In terms of etiological status, many of the central criticisms of the disorder's validity remain unaddressed. Most cases of DID emerged from a small number of countries and clinicians. In addition, documented cases occurring outside treatment were almost nonexistent. Finally, people simulating DID in the laboratory were mostly indistinguishable from individuals with DID. Overall, DID is still a topic of study, but the research lacks the productivity and focus needed to resolve ongoing controversies surrounding the disorder.
    The Journal of nervous and mental disease 01/2013; 201(1):5-11. · 1.81 Impact Factor