Two studies of the clinical work of experienced psychoanalysts are presented. Study I is a retrospective study of all the analytic work—161 cases—of sixteen analysts from l973 to l977, including their evaluations of the treatments at outcome. Study II is a prospective study of the ninety-two cases started in analysis by a group of twenty analysts between 1984 and l989 and followed to termination, including their reports. The history of each treatment as reported and evaluated by the analyst is examined in terms of: nature of the population, the analyst's view of the case when the initial recommendation was made, duration of treatment, therapeutic benefit, rating of analyzability at termination of treatment, nature of the termination, and cases changed to psychotherapy. Some old shibboleths are challenged as perspective on both the limitations and achievements of psychoanalysis emerges from the findings of the study.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Bachrach, H.M., Weber, J.J., & Solomon, M. (1985). Factors associated with the outcome of psychoanalysis (clinical and methodological considerations): Report of the Columbia Psychoanalytic Center Research Project (IV). International Review of Psychoanalysis12:379—389.
2.
——— (1993). The Columbia records project and the evolution of psychoanalytic outcome research. Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association41(Suppl):279—297.
3.
Busch, F.N., Milrod, B.L., Rudden, M., Shapiro, T., Roiphe, J., Singer, M., & Aronson, A. (2001). How treating psychoanalysts respond to psychotherapy research constraints. Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association49:961—984.
4.
Cooper, A. (1993). On empirical research. Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association41(Suppl):381—391.
5.
Erle, J.B. (1979). An approach to the study of analyzability and analyses: The course of forty consecutive cases selected for supervised analysis . Psychoanalytic Quarterly48:198—228.
6.
——— & Goldberg, D.A. (1979). Problems in the assessment of analyzability. Psychoanalytic Quarterly48:48—84.
7.
——— ——— (1984). Observations on assessment of analyzability by experienced analysts. Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association32:715—737.
8.
Fonagy, P., ED. (2000). An Open Door Review of Outcome Studies in Psychoanalysis. London : International Psychoanalytical Association.
9.
Galatzer-Levy, R.M. (1993). The rewards of research. Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association41(Suppl.):393—409.
10.
——— Bachrach, H., Skolnikoff, A., & Waldron, S. (2000). Does Psychoanalysis Work?New Haven: Yale University Press.
11.
Horton, R. (2000). How sick is modern medicine? New York Review of Books, 47(17):46—50.
12.
Jones, E.E. (1993). How will psychoanalysis study itself?Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association41(Suppl.):91—108.
13.
Kantrowitz, J.L. (1993). Outcome research in psychoanalysis: Review and reconsiderations. Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association41(Suppl.):313—328.
14.
——— (1995). The beneficial aspects of the patient-analyst match. International Journal of Psychoanalysis76:299—313.
15.
Kernberg, O.F. (1993). Empirical research in psychoanalysis. Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association41(Suppl.):369—380.
16.
Malterud, K. (2001). The art and science of clinical knowledge: Evidence beyond measures and numbers. Lancet358:397—400.
17.
Sandell, R., Blomberg, J., Lazar, A., Carlsson, J., Broberg, J., & S. Chubert, J. (2000). Varieties of long-term outcome among patients in psychoanalysis and long-term psychotherapy: A review of findings in the Stockholm outcome of psychoanalysis and psychotherapy project (STOPPP) . International Journal of Psychoanalysis81:921—942.
18.
Sashin, J.L., Eldred, S.H., & Van Amerongen, S.T. (1975). A search for predictive factors in institute supervised cases: A retrospective study of 183 cases from 1959—1966 at the Boston Psychoanalytic Society and Institute. International Journal of Psychoanalysis56:343—359.
19.
Shapiro, T. (1993). Discussion: The clinician and the scientist. Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association41(Suppl.):153—164.
20.
——— & Emde, R.N., EDS. (1993 ). Research in Psychoanalysis: Process, Development, Outcome . Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association41(Suppl.).
21.
Spence, D.P. (1993). New understandings of the psychoanalytic process . Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association41(Suppl.):131—141.
22.
Szecsody, I. (2000). Commentaries on Robert Michels's “The case history.” Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association48:397—403.
23.
Tuckett, D. (2000). Commentaries on Robert Michels's “The case history.” Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association48:403—411.
24.
Vaughan, S.C., Marshall, R.D., Mackinnon, R.A., Vaughan, R., Mellman, L., & Roose, S.P. (2000). Can we do psychoanalytic outcome research? A feasibility study. International Journal of Psychoanalysis81:513—527.
25.
Wallerstein, R.S. (1986). Forty-Two Lives in Treatment: A Study of Psychoanalysis and Psychotherapy. New York: Guilford Press.
26.
Weber, J., Bachrach, H., & Solomon, M. (1985a). Factors associated with the outcome of psychoanalysis: Report of the Columbia Psychoanalytic Center Research Project (II). International Review of Psychoanalysis12:127—141.
27.
——— ——— ——— (1985b). Factors associated with the outcome of psychoanalysis: Report of the Columbia Psychoanalytic Center Research Project (III). International Review of Psychoanalysis12:251—262.
