Research portfolio submitted in part fulfilment of the requirements for the Degree of Doctorate in Clinical Psychology

Background: Socialising a client to the cognitive behavioural model is advised in almost every cognitive behavioural therapy textbook but there is limited evidence for whether socialisation is measurable or important in terms of outcomes. Aims: To determine whether socialisation to the model could b...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Mahoney-Davies, Gerwyn
Other Authors: Gregory, James ; Griffith, Emma ; Davis, Cara ; Salkovskis, Paul ; Loades, Maria ; Russell, Ailsa ; Daniels, Jolene
Published: University of Bath 2016
Subjects:
Online Access:https://ethos.bl.uk/OrderDetails.do?uin=uk.bl.ethos.698971
Description
Summary:Background: Socialising a client to the cognitive behavioural model is advised in almost every cognitive behavioural therapy textbook but there is limited evidence for whether socialisation is measurable or important in terms of outcomes. Aims: To determine whether socialisation to the model could be measured in a sample of young people who have completed CBT and to explore whether this construct is important in relation to clinical outcomes. Methods: Sixteen participants (mean age 14.9 years, 75% female) completed a semi-structured socialisation interview and a novel written measure of socialisation. They rated their subjective improvement using the Clinical Global Impression improvement subscale. Treating clinicians were asked to provide participant routine outcome measure scores, subjective ratings of participant socialisation and their Clinical Global Impression improvement subscale score. Results: A moderate but non-significant correlation was found between the novel written measure of socialisation and clinician rating of socialisation (r = .37) and greater total socialisation was associated with greater percentage change on routine outcome measures (r = .42) although simple clinician rating of socialisation was also associated with percentage change (r = .42). None of these correlations were significant, however, probably due to the small sample size. Conclusions: A small sample size precludes conclusions being made but useful ways of improving research in this newly developing area were learned and discussed.