A multicentre study: Comparison of 3-LM group output and therapeutic outcome measures. Adding to the of the 3-LM? Part 2.

Unlabelled: This is the second report (part 2) of an investigation whose general objective was to provide evidence regarding the trustworthiness of the Three-Level Model (3-LM). Three groups of analysts from different IPA regions worked with this model on the same clinical case.

Specific Objectives: 1) To analyze group output with the same structured qualitative methodology (part 1); 2) To compare the results of the 3-LM group output reported in the 3-LM forms with the process-outcome measures used in the clinical case (part 2); 3) To describe the presence-absence of anchor points in the groups, their similarities and differences (part 2); 4) To exemplify the interrelationship of the three levels of the 3-LM in relation to patient change and the analyst's interventions (part 2).

Sample: verbatim transcript of three 3-LM groups.

Materials: 3-LM forms, process and outcome measures (APS, DIS and PHI-RADIO) and Operationalized Psychodynamic Diagnosis.

Results: Objective 2 found global convergence in the PHI, DIS and APS scores across sessions. Objective 3 showed convergences and divergences in the themes relating to the anchor points. Objective 4 showed how an anchor point corresponds to the focus of treatment and how this is present in the analyst's attitudes and interventions.

Discussion: The results offer preliminary support for the trustworthiness of the 3-LM.