There is a lively debate in psychotherapy research on when and how clinical psychologists may use supportive and interpretive interventions and with which types of clients (Dimaggio, 2010; Wallerstain, 1986). Moreover, many scholars question on which tools have to be adopted to measure clinician interventions (Hersoug et al., 2004; Waldron, 2004) and if supportive or interpretative actions are better at producing good outcomes (Lingiardi, 2008). This work aims to explore this issue in counselling in Higher Education by analyzing how supportive and interpretive interventions emerge along two group counselling processes with different outcomes. The counselling paths were aimed at promoting reflexive competences with underachieving university students and at improving their academic performance. Counselling adopted a narrative multimodal methodology, the Narrative Mediation Path (Freda et al., 2016), which combines in a single method four narrative modes (Metaphoric, Iconographic, Writing, Bodily). Previous outcome measures showed that the two groups, although starting from the same level of reflexive competence, showed different outcomes both in terms of reflexivity and academic performance. The PIRS (Psychodynamic Intervention Rating Scale) (Cooper & Bond, 2002) was adopted to analyze, along the four narrative modes, the interventions of the clinical psychologist who led both the counselling paths. The process analysis was performed by two independent coders (Cohen Kappa=0.89). The results showed that, consistent with the aim of the intervention, the supportive actions were the most used in both counselling. However, in the counselling a good outcome, interpretive interventions were used more (89.48% vs. 84.9%) and in the early modes (Iconographic vs. Writing). The need to balance the type of interventions and to regulate their timing will be discussed with specific reference to the counselling area that is commonly known for its predominantly supportive function.

THE ROLE OF SUPPORTIVE AND INTERPRETATIVE INTERVENTIONS IN FOSTERING REFLEXIVITY AND ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENTS: A PROCESS RESEARCH USING THE PSYCHODYNAMIC INTERVENTION RATING SCALE IN COUNSELLING / Esposito, Giovanna; Marano, Denise. - In: MEDITERRANEAN JOURNAL OF CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGY. - ISSN 2282-1619. - 4:2 B1(2016), pp. 15-16. (Intervento presentato al convegno XVIII NATIONAL CONGRESS ITALIAN PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION CLINICAL AND DYNAMIC SECTION tenutosi a Roma nel 16-18 Settembre, 2016) [10.6092/2282-1619/2016.4.1289].

THE ROLE OF SUPPORTIVE AND INTERPRETATIVE INTERVENTIONS IN FOSTERING REFLEXIVITY AND ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENTS: A PROCESS RESEARCH USING THE PSYCHODYNAMIC INTERVENTION RATING SCALE IN COUNSELLING

ESPOSITO, GIOVANNA;
2016

Abstract

There is a lively debate in psychotherapy research on when and how clinical psychologists may use supportive and interpretive interventions and with which types of clients (Dimaggio, 2010; Wallerstain, 1986). Moreover, many scholars question on which tools have to be adopted to measure clinician interventions (Hersoug et al., 2004; Waldron, 2004) and if supportive or interpretative actions are better at producing good outcomes (Lingiardi, 2008). This work aims to explore this issue in counselling in Higher Education by analyzing how supportive and interpretive interventions emerge along two group counselling processes with different outcomes. The counselling paths were aimed at promoting reflexive competences with underachieving university students and at improving their academic performance. Counselling adopted a narrative multimodal methodology, the Narrative Mediation Path (Freda et al., 2016), which combines in a single method four narrative modes (Metaphoric, Iconographic, Writing, Bodily). Previous outcome measures showed that the two groups, although starting from the same level of reflexive competence, showed different outcomes both in terms of reflexivity and academic performance. The PIRS (Psychodynamic Intervention Rating Scale) (Cooper & Bond, 2002) was adopted to analyze, along the four narrative modes, the interventions of the clinical psychologist who led both the counselling paths. The process analysis was performed by two independent coders (Cohen Kappa=0.89). The results showed that, consistent with the aim of the intervention, the supportive actions were the most used in both counselling. However, in the counselling a good outcome, interpretive interventions were used more (89.48% vs. 84.9%) and in the early modes (Iconographic vs. Writing). The need to balance the type of interventions and to regulate their timing will be discussed with specific reference to the counselling area that is commonly known for its predominantly supportive function.
2016
THE ROLE OF SUPPORTIVE AND INTERPRETATIVE INTERVENTIONS IN FOSTERING REFLEXIVITY AND ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENTS: A PROCESS RESEARCH USING THE PSYCHODYNAMIC INTERVENTION RATING SCALE IN COUNSELLING / Esposito, Giovanna; Marano, Denise. - In: MEDITERRANEAN JOURNAL OF CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGY. - ISSN 2282-1619. - 4:2 B1(2016), pp. 15-16. (Intervento presentato al convegno XVIII NATIONAL CONGRESS ITALIAN PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION CLINICAL AND DYNAMIC SECTION tenutosi a Roma nel 16-18 Settembre, 2016) [10.6092/2282-1619/2016.4.1289].
File in questo prodotto:
Non ci sono file associati a questo prodotto.

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11588/651170
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus ND
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 0
social impact