Change After Psychotherapy (CHAP): A method for measuring change after the termination of psychotherapy

Author/s Rolf Sandell
Publishing Year 2015 Issue 2015/4
Language Italian Pages 34 P. 595-628 File size 158 KB
DOI 10.3280/PU2015-004004
DOI is like a bar code for intellectual property: to have more infomation click here

Below, you can see the article first page

If you want to buy this article in PDF format, you can do it, following the instructions to buy download credits

Article preview

FrancoAngeli is member of Publishers International Linking Association, Inc (PILA), a not-for-profit association which run the CrossRef service enabling links to and from online scholarly content.

Change After Psychotherapy (CHAP), formulated by Rolf Sandell in 1987, is a method to measure change after the termination of a psychotherapy, without comparing pre- and post-treatment variables. The CHAP five scales are described (Symptoms, Adaptive Capacity, Self-insight, Basic Conflicts, and Extra-Therapeutic Factors), with data on reliability and norms. One of the interesting aspects of CHAP is that it allows to identify variables not present at the beginning of treatment, i.e., that could not be included in prepost measures since they might appear due to therapy itself. This manual, which was never published before, is an update of a 1997 manuscript.

Keywords: Psychotherapy research, psychotherapy outcome, post-treatment evaluation, quantitative research, qualitative research

  1. American Psychological Association (2013). Recognition of psychotherapy effectiveness. Psychotherapy, 50, 1: 102-109. ( dell’efficacia della psicoterapia. Psicoterapia e Scienze Umane, 2013, XLVII, 3:407-422.) DOI: 10.1037/a0030276DOI:10.3280/PU2013-003001
  2. Bereiter C. (1967). Some persisting dilemmas in the measurement of change. In: Harris, 1967, pp. 3-20.
  3. Bersani F. (2008). La riproducibilità nella scienza: mito o realtà? Psicoterapia e Scienze Umane, 2009, XLIII, 1: 59-76. DOI: 10.3280/PU2009-001004
  4. Chambless D.L. & Ollendick T.H. (2001). Empirically supported psychological interventions: controversies and evidence. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 1: 685-716. (trad. it.:Gli interventi psicologici validati empiricamente: controversie ed evidenze empiriche. Psicoterapia e Scienze Umane, 2001, XXXV,3:5-46) DOI: 10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.685
  5. Fonagy P. & Target M. (1993-2000). Attaccamento e funzione riflessiva. Milano: Raffaello Cortina, 2001.
  6. Fonagy P., Gergely G., Jurist E.L. & Target M. (2002). Affect Regulation, Mentalization, and the Development of the Self. New York: Other Press (trad. it.: Regolazione affettiva, mentalizzazione e sviluppo del Sé. Milano: Raffaello Cortina, 2004).
  7. Fonagy P., Steele M., Steele H. & Target M. (1998). Reflective Functioning Manual, Version 5.0: For application to Adult Attachment Interviews. London: University College London. Fornaro M. (2009). Perché la ricerca in psicoterapia non può esaurire le peculiarità della clinica.
  8. Per un’integrazione epistemologica. Psicoterapia e Scienze Umane, XLIII, 2: 191-214. DOI: 10.3280/PU2009-002003
  9. Fornaro M. (2013). Come validare le interpretazioni e le spiegazioni in clinica senza ricorrere alla ricerca empirica. Psicoterapia e Scienze Umane, XLVII, 4: 601-620. DOI: 10.3280/PU2013-004002
  10. Harris C.W., editor (1967). Problems in Measuring Change. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.
  11. Horowitz M.J., editor (1991). Person Schemas and Maladaptive Interpersonal Patterns. Chicago,
  12. IL: University of Chicago Press. Lord F.M. (1967). Elementary models for measuring change. In: Harris, 1967, pp. 199-211.
  13. Luborsky L. & Crits-Christoph P. (1990). Understanding Transference: The CCRT Method. New York: Basic Books (trad. it.: Capire il transfert. Milano: Raffaello Cortina, 1992).
  14. Luborsky L. (1984). Principles of Psychoanalytic Psychotherapy. New York: Basic Books (trad. it.: Princìpi di psicoterapia psicoanalitica. Torino: Bollati Boringhieri, 1989).
  15. Migone P. (2008). Psicoterapia e ricerca “scientifica”. Psicoterapia e Scienze Umane, 2009, XLIII, 1: 77-94. DOI: 10.3280/PU2009-001005
  16. Pfeffer A. (1959). A procedure for evaluating the results of psychoanalysis. Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association, 7, 3: 418-444. DOI: 10.1177/000306515900700302
  17. Sandell R. (1987a). Assessing the effects of psychotherapy. I: Analysis and critique of present conventions of estimating change. Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics, 47, 1: 29-36. DOI: 10.1159/000287995
  18. Sandell R. (1987b). Assessing the effects of psychotherapy. II: A procedure for direct rating of psychotherapeutic change. Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics, 47, 1: 37-43. DOI: 10.1159/000287996
  19. Sandell R. (1987c). Assessing the effects of psychotherapy. III: Reliability and validity of “Change After Psychotherapy”. Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics, 47, 1: 44-52. DOI: 10.1159/000287997
  20. Sandell R. (1987d). Assessing the effects of psychotherapy. IV: The incompatibility between the logic of the experiment and the nature of psychotherapy. Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics, 47, 1: 53-58. DOI: 10.1159/000287998
  21. Sandell R. (1997). Psychotherapeutic change is predictable, spontaneous change is not. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 53, 8: 925-933.
  22. Schafer R. (1968). Aspects of Internalization. New York: International Universities Press.
  23. Schlessinger N. & Robbins F. (1974). Assessment and follow-up in psychoanalysis. J. American Psychoanalytic Association, 22, 3: 542-567. DOI: 10.1177/000306517402200305
  24. Shedler J. (2010). The efficacy of psychodynamic therapy. American Psychologist, 65, 2: 98-109. DOI: 10.1037/a0018378
  25.’efficaciadellaterapiapsicodinamica.PsicoterapiaeScienzeUmane,2010,XLIV,1:9-34. DOI: 10.3280/PU2010-001002
  26. Wallerstein R.S. (1986). Forty-two Lives in Treatment: A Study of Psychoanalysis and Psychotherapy. New York: Guilford.
  27. Weiss J. (1993). How Psychotherapy Works. New York: Guilford (trad. it.: Come funziona la psicoterapia. Presentazione di P. Migone e G. Liotti. Torino: Bollati Boringhieri, 1999).
  28. Weiss J., Sampson H. & the Mount Zion Psychotherapy Research Group (1986). The Psychoanalytic Process: Theory, Clinical Observation, and Empirical Research. New York: Guilford (trad. it. del cap. 1: Weiss J., Introduzione al lavoro del “San Francisco Psychotherapy Research Group”. Psicoterapia e Scienze Umane, 1993, XXVII, 2: 47-65).
  29. Westen D., Morrison Novotny K. & Thompson-Brenner H. (2004). The empirical status of empirically supported psychotherapies: assumptions, findings, and reporting in controlled clinical trials. Psychological Bulletin, 130, 4: 631-663. DOI: 10.1037/0033-2909.130.4.63
  30. (trad. it.: Lo statuto empirico delle psicoterapie validate empiricamente: assunti, risultati e pubblicazione delle ricerche. Psicoterapia e Scienze Umane, 2005, XXXIX, 1: 7-90).
  31. Westen D., Shedler J., Bradley B. & DeFife J.A. (2012). An empirically derived taxonomy for personality diagnosis: Bridging science and practice in conceptualizing personality. American Journal of Psychiatry, 169, 3: 273-284. DOI: 10.1176/appi.ajp.2011.11020274
  32. Zilberg N.J., Wallerstein R.S., DeWitt K.N., Hartley D. & Rosenberg S.E. (1991). A conceptual analysis and strategy for assessing structural change. Psychoanalysis and Contemporary Thought, 14, 2: 317-342.
  33. Una tassonomia delle diagnosi di personalità derivata empiricamente: colmare il divario tra scienza e clinica nella concettualizzazione della personalità. Psicoterapiae Scienze Umane,2012, XLVI, 3:327-358. DOI: 10.3280/PU2012-003001

  • Posouzení změn po ukončení psychoterapie (CHAP): Česká verze manuálu Rolf Sandell, David Holub, Jan Roubal, Tomáš Řiháček, Martina Pourová, Tomáš Peřich, Radim Karpíšek, Michal Nondek, Roman Hytych, Michaela Viktorinová, Miroslava Benešová, (ISBN:978-80-210-9244-0)

Rolf Sandell, Change After Psychotherapy (CHAP): un metodo di valutazione del cambiamento alla fine della psicoterapia in "PSICOTERAPIA E SCIENZE UMANE" 4/2015, pp 595-628, DOI: 10.3280/PU2015-004004