Understanding transfert the core conflictual relationship method

FOREWORD
FOREWORD
PREFACE
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
PROJECT PARTICIPANTS
I THE BASICS OF THE CCRT METHOD AND ITS SCORING
	THE EARLY LIFE OF THE IDEA FOR THE CORE CONFLICTUAL RELATIONSHIP THEME METHOD
		THE LINEAGE OF THE CENTRAL RELATIONSHIP PATTERN CONCEPT
			From the Psychoanalysts
			From the Personality Researchers
			From the Developmental and the Object Relations Researchers
			From the Early Attempts to Develop a Transference Measure
				Systematic Clinical Formulation of the Transference Paradigms
				Agreement on the Conventional Unguided Transference Formulations
				Rating the Amount of Transference
				Formulation of the Patient’s Main Communication in a Session as a Focus for Interpretations
				Formulation and Rating of the Symptom-Context Theme
		CONCLUSION
	A GUIDE TO THE CCRT METHOD
		PHASE A: LOCATION RELATIONSHIOP EPISODES
			Definition of a Relationship Episode
			Types of Other Persons in Relationship Episodes
				RE: Specific Other People
				RE: Therapist
				RE: Self
			Current Versus Past Relationship Episodes
			Completeness of Relationship Episodes
			Assignment of Scoring Judges
		PHASE B: SCORING THE CCRT
			Step 1: Identifying the Types of CCRT Components
				Locating and Underlining Parts of the Relationship Episode to Be Scored
				Identifying Types of Components
				Preparing the Transcript for Scoring
				Keeping Within the Range of Levels of Inference From Literal to Moderately Abstract
			Step 2: Counting the Types of Components and Formulating the CCRT
			Step 1': Re-Identifying the Types of CCRT Components to Make a Final Formulation
			Step 2': Recounting and Reformulating the CCRT on the Basis of Step 1'
			Step 3: Choosing and Rating the Standard Categories for the CCRT
				Options Among Standard Category Lists
				Related Lists of Standard Categories
			Applications of Standard Categories
				System 1
				System 2
			Detailed Guides for Scoring the Components: Wishes, Responses From Other, and Responses of Self
				Wishes
				Responses From Other
				Responses of Self
			Positive and Negative Responses
			RO and RO-Expected
		OPTIONAL STEPS
			Step 4: Distinguishing Between Expressed and Not Expressed Responses of Self
			Step 5: Judging the Intensity of Theme Components
			Step 6: Recording the Sequence of the Appearance of Each Component
			Step 7: Estimating the Patient’s Moment-to-Moment Experience of the Components of the CCRT in the Relationship With the Therapist
			Step 8: Randomizing Relationship Episodes Before Scoring
			Step 9: Additional Quantitative Specification of the CCRT
		SUPPLEMENTARY ISSUES
			Estimating Reliability of Tailor-Made Categories
				Agreement Judges
				Paired Comparisons
			The Need of the CCRT Judge for Uniform Background Information About the Patient
			The Best Sample Size of Relationship Episodes for Deriving the CCRT
			The Use of Dreams and Fantasies
			Training Procedures for Learning to Score the CCRT
		CONCLUSION
			Note
			TABLE 1 Completeness Ratings of Hypothetical Relationship Episodes
			Figure 1.
			Figure 2.
			Figure 3.
			TABLE 2 Level of Inference in Scoring Wishes
			TABLE 3 Intensity Ratings
	Appendix A: Summary of Basic Steps for Scoring the CCRT
		PHASE A: LOCATING RELATIONSHIP EPISODES
			Notations for the Relationship Episodes
		PHASE B: EXTRACTING THE CCRT
			Step 1
			Step 2
			Step 1'
			Step 2’
			Step 3
			Step 4
			Step 5 (optional)
			Step 6 (optional)
			Step 7 (optional)
			Step 8 (optional)
			Step 9 (optional)
		NOTATIONS FOR THE CCRT COMPONENTS
			Steps 1—2 and 1'—2'
				Wishes
				Responses From Other
				Responses of the Self
	APPENDIX B
		WISHES
		RESPONSES FROM OTHER
		RESPONSES OF SELF
	A GUIDE TO THE CCRT STANDARD CATEGORIES AND THEIR CLASSIFICATION
		DEVELOPMENT OF THE STANDARD CATEGORIES
		PROCEDURE FOR A CLUSTER-BASED CLASSIFICATION
		RESULTS
		DISCUSSION
			Wishes
			Responses From Others
			Responses of Self
		CONCLUSIONS
			EXHIBIT 1 A Standard List of Scoring Categories: Edition 1 Based on the CCRT in a Normative Group (n = 16)
			TABLE 1 Standard CCRT Categories: Edition 2
			Table 1 cont.
			Table 1 cont.
			TABLE 2 CCRT Clustered Standard Categories; Edition 3
	POSITIVE VERSUS NEGATIVE CCRT PATTERNS
		RELIABILITY OF SCORING THE POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE DIMENSIONS OF THE CCRT
			The Two-Category System
			A New Four-Category Positive and Negative Scale
		PROPORTION OF POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE NARRATIVES IN CHILDREN, ADULT PATIENTS, AND NORMAL CONTROLS
		CHANGES IN POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE DIMENSIONS OVER THE COURSE OF PSYCHOTHERAPY
		RELATIONSHIP TO PSYCHOTHERAPY OUTCOMES
		CONCLUSION
			Note
			Figure 1.
			Figure 2.
			TABLE 1 Pearson Correlations Between Positive and Negative CCRT Response of Other (RO) and Response of Self (RS) Scores with the Health-Sickness Rating Scale (HSRS) and Mastery Scale
	ILLUSTRATIONS OF THE CCRT SCORING GUIDE
		MS. SMYTH: SHORT-TERM PSYCHODYNAMIC PSYCHOTHERAPY
			Clinical Evaluation
				Initial
				Termination
				Six-Month Follow-up
			CCRT Data and Results
				Ms. Smyth: CCRT Scoring of Relationship Episodes Session 3
					RE 2: Ex-employers, Completeness Rating 4.0
					RE 3: Brother and His Wife, Completeness Rating 4.5
					RE 4: Boyfriend, Completeness Rating 5.0
				Session 5
					RE 5: Father, Completeness Rating 3.0
					RE 6: Boss, Completeness Rating 2.5
		MR. EDWARD HOWARD: PSYCHOANALYTIC PSYCHOTHERAPY
			Clinical Evaluation
				Initial
				Termination (After About 90 Sessions)
			CCRT Data and Results
				Mr. Howard: CCRT Scoring of Relationship Episodes (Condensed) Session 3
					RE 1: Mother
					RE 2: Mother
					RE 3: Therapist
					RE 4: Mother
					RE 5: Girlfriend
					RE 6: Mother
				Mr. Howard: CCRT Scoring of Relationship Episodes (Condensed) Sessions 82 and 83
					RE 1: Therapist (Session 82)
					Dream A: Trainers3
					RE 2: Boyfriend
					Dream B: Store (Session 83)
					Dream C: Store Owner
					RE 3: Therapist
					RE 4: Father
		MS. CATHY CUNNINGHAM: PSYCHOANALYSIS
			Clinical Evaluation
				Initial
				Termination (After About 1,300 Sessions)
			CCRT Data and Results
				Ms. Cunningham: CCRT Scoring of Relationship Episodes (Condensed) Session 5
					RE 1: Assistant
					RE 3: Husband
					RE 4: Boys and parents
					RE 5: Therapist
					RE 7: Professor
				Ms. Cunningham: CCRT Scoring of Relationship Episodes (Condensed) Session 1,208
					RE 1: Therapist
					RE 2: Self
					RE 3: Assistant
					RE 4: Husband
					RE 5: Self
					RE 6: Therapist
		CONCLUSIONS
			Note
			EXHIBIT 1 SYMBOLS FOR CCRT SCORING TO BE APPLIED TO THE RELATIONSHIP EPISODES
			TABLE 1 CCRT Score Sheet for Each Relationship Episode, Tailor-Made System
			TABLE 2 CCRT Score Sheet, Tailor-Made System: Summary Across All Relationship Episodes
			TABLE 3 CCRT Summary: Standard Categories
			TABLE 4 CCRT Score Sheet for Each Relationship Episode, Tailor-Made System
			TABLE 5 CCRT Score Sheet, Tailor-Made System: Summary Across All Relationship Episodes
			TABLE 6 CCRT Summary: Standard Categories
			TABLE 7 CCRT Score Sheet for Each Relationship Episode, Tailor-Made System
			TABLE 8 CCRT Score Sheet for Each Relationship Episode, Tailor-Made System: Summary Across All Relationship Episodes
			TABLE 9 CCRT Summary: Standard Categories
			TABLE 10 CCRT Score Sheet for Each Relationship Episode, Tailor-Made System
			TABLE 11 CCRT Score Sheet, Tailor-Made System: Summary Across All Relationship Episodes
			TABLE 12 CCRT Summary: Standard Categories
			TABLE 13 CCRT Score Sheet for Each Relationship Episode, Tailor-Made System
			TABLE 14 CCRT Score Sheet, Tailor-Made System: Summary Across All Relationship Episodes
			TABLE 15 CCRT Summary: Standard Categories
	THE RELIABILITY OF THE CCRT MEASURE: RESULTS FROM EIGHT SAMPLES
		AGREEMENT ON THE SELECTION OF RELATIONSHIP EPISODES FROM SESSIONS
			Completeness of Each Relationship Episode
			Selection of the Main Other Person in Each RE
			Location of the Relationship Episode
		AGREEMENT ON THE CCRT
			The Earliest Study of CCRT Reliability
			Agreement on the CCRT for Matched Versus Mismatched Cases
			Agreement on the CCRT for One Patient
			Sample A: Agreement on the CCRT by Three Independent Judges for 8 Patients
			Sample B: The First Large-Scale Study of Interjudge Agreement on the CCRT
			Samples C and D: A Comparison of the CCRT in Dreams Versus Narratives
			Samples E and F: A Comparison of the CCRT for Session Narratives Versus Relationship Anecdote Paradigm Narratives
				Reliability of the CCRT From Psychotherapy Sessions (Sample E)
				Reliability of the CCRT from RAP Narratives (Sample F)
			Sample G: A Comparison of the CCRTs of Children From Age 3 to Age 5
				Percentage of Agreement Between Two Judges
				Weighted Kappa Agreement
			Sample H: A Comparison of Adolescents at Age 14 and at Age 18 on the Basis of RAP Narratives
			Sample I: The Core Conflictual Relationship Themes of Borderline Personality Disorder
		CONCLUSIONS
			Note
			TABLE 1 Summary of Eight Samples for Reliabilities of CCRT Components
	THE RELATIONSHIP ANECDOTES PARADIGM (RAP) INTERVIEW AS A VERSATILE SOURCE OF NARRATIVES
		ADMINISTRATION OF THE RAP INTERVIEW
			Instructions
			Improving Rapport and Dealing With Special Contingencies
		CHARACTERISTICS OF RAP NARRATIVES
		USES OF RAP NARRATIVES
			RAP Narratives as Data for the CCRT Measure
			Other Uses of the RAP Interview Procedure
				As a Database for Studies of Explanatory Style
			As a Source of Data for Developmental Studies of Central Relationship Patterns
			As a Basis for Studies of Self-Understanding
			As a Basis for the Comparison Among Diagnostic Groups
			As a Basis for Intergenerational Comparisons
		CONCLUSIONS
			TABLE 1 Descriptive Characteristics of RAP Narratives in an Outpatient Psychiatric Clinic Sample (N = 24)
			TABLE 2 CCRT Score Sheet Summary (Number of Relationship Episodes Containing Each Component)
		APPENDIX
			The RAP Interview for Mr. Edward Howard: An 8-Year-Follow-up
				RE 1: Therapist
				RE 2: Work Supervisor
				RE 3: Sister
	WHY EACH CCRT PROCEDURE WAS CHOSEN
		DATABASE DECISIONS
			To Rely on Psychotherapy Sessions
			To Restrict the Database to Narratives About Relationship Episodes
			To Include Behavioral Enactments of the Relationship With the Therapist
		SCORING SYSTEM DECISIONS
			To Use Guided Judgments
			To Identify the Main Other Person Within Each Relationship Episode With Whom the Speaker Is Interacting
			To Rely on Three Components of Narratives: Wishes, Responses From Others, and Responses of Self
			To Use a Theme Format That Highlights Conflicts
			To Judge All Responses as Either Positive or Negative
			To Use Both Tailor-Made and Standard Categories
			To Rely on Redundancy Across the Narratives (Pervasiveness) as the Indicator of the CCRT
			To Allow Only One Score per Relationship Episode for Each Different Category
			To Use Our Usual System for Counting All Scorable Components Regardless of Sequence
		INFERENCE LEVEL AND FOCUS DECISIONS
			To Stay Within the Range of Moderate Inference
			To Add a Re-Review of the Relationship Episodes by Steps 1' and 2'
			To Focus on the Patient’s Perspective
		CONCLUSIONS
II DISCOVERIES FROM THE CCRT METHOD
	THE NARRATIVES TOLD DURING PSYCHOTHERAPY AND THE TYPES OF CCRTs WITHIN THEM
		NUMBER AND COMPLETENESS OF NARRATIVES
		LENGTH OF NARRATIVES TOLD DURING THERAPY SESSIONS
		MAIN OTHER PEOPLE IN NARRATIVES
		CCRTs OF PATIENTS
		TYPES OF TAILOR-MADE CCRTs WITHIN NARRATIVES
		TYPES OF STANDARD CATEGORY CCRTs WITHIN NARRATIVES
		CCRT SEQUENCES OF COMPONENTS FOR THE WISH TO BE CLOSE VERSUS THE WISH TO BE INDEPENDENT
			The Wish to Be Close or Be Loved
			The Wish to Be Independent
		COMPARISON OF THE SEQUENTIAL CCRT AND THE REGULAR CCRT
		POSITIVE VERSUS NEGATIVE RESPONSES WITHIN CCRTs
		DIFFERENCES IN CCRTs BY DIAGNOSIS (DYSTHYMIA AND NONDYSTHYMIA)
		RESULTS, DISCUSSION, AND CONCLUSIONS
			TABLE 1 Frequency of Different Other Persons in Narratives (N = 33)
			TABLE 2 Tailor-Made CCRT Categories for the Penn Psychotherapy Project Sample (N = 33) With Subsamples of Dysthymic (n = 12) and Nondysthymic (n = 21) Groups
			TABLE 3 Clustered Standard Categories Within Narratives for Penn Psychotherapy Project Sample (N = 33) With Subsamples of Dysthymic (n = 12) and Nondysthymic (n = 21) Groups
			TABLE 4 Most Frequent Tailor-Made and Standard Clustered Categories for the Penn Psychotherapy Project Sample (N = 33)
			TABLE 5 Positive Versus Negative CCRT Components Related to the Therapist or Others
	CHANGES IN CCRT PERVASIVENESS DURING PSYCHOTHERAPY
		PROCEDURE
			Combination of Judges’ CCRT Formulations
			Patients and Therapists
			Treatment, Sessions, and Judges
		RESULTS
			CCRT Pervasiveness Scores Were Highly Reliable
			Measures of CCRT Change Were Low to Moderately Intercorrelated
			CCRT Pervasiveness Was Greatest for the Wishes
			CCRT Pervasiveness Decreased From Early to Late in Therapy
			Some Early-in-Therapy Pervasiveness Scores Were Related to Initial Symptoms and to Initial Health–Sickness
			Change in CCRT Pervasiveness Was Moderately Correlated With Change in Symptoms and Change in Health-Sickness
		DISCUSSION
			Reliability of Pervasiveness Score
			CCRT Pervasiveness Across the Narratives
			CCRT Pervasiveness Changes in Therapy
			CCRT Change Tends to Correlate With Symptom Reduction
			Limitations of the Measure of CCRT Pervasiveness
		CONCLUSIONS
			Note
			TABLE 1 Intercorrelations of CCRT Pervasiveness Change Measures (Residual Gain Scores)
			TABLE 2 Mean Percentages Early and Late in Treatment for CCRT Pervasiveness Scores (N = 33)
			TABLE 3 Partial Correlations of Change in CCRT Pervasiveness Measures With Change in Symptoms and Change in Health-Sickness
	THE PARALLEL OF THE CCRT FOR THE THERAPIST WITH THE CCRT FOR OTHER PEOPLE
		AIMS AND PROCEDURES
			Phase 1: Formulating Other Person-CCRTs
			Phase 2: Comparing Other Person-CCRTs With Therapist-REs
		RESULTS
			Interjudge Reliability of the CCRT Was Adequate
			Therapist-REs and Other Person-CCRTs Showed Similarity
			Similarity Was Greater for Cases With Three or More Therapist-REs
		THE DIRECTIONS THAT LEAD FROM HERE
			Increasing the Number of Relationship Episodes
			Examining Concomitants of Different Other Persons
			Improving the Level of Similarity of Therapist-REs and Other Person-REs
		CONCLUSIONS
			Figure 1.
			Figure 2.
			Figure 3.
			Figure 4.
			Figure 5.
	THE PARALLEL OF THE CCRT FROM WAKING NARRATIVES WITH THE CCRT FROM DREAMS
		STUDY 1: THE PARALLEL OF THE CCRT FROM WAKING NARRATIVES WITH THE CCRT FROM DREAMS[7]
			Selection of Dreams, Narratives, and Judges
			CCRT Tailor-Made and Standard Categories
			Results
				Ms. Apfel (Case 1)
			Wishes Derived From Dreams Plus Associations and From Dreams Plus Whole Sessions
				Ms. Bauman (Case 2)
				Mr. Crane (Case 3)
			Summary and Discussion
		STUDY 2: THE PARALLEL OF THE CCRT FROM WAKING NARRATIVES WITH THE CCRT FROM DREAMS: A FURTHER VALIDATION
			Method
			Results
				Reliability
				Common Types of CCRT Components in Dreams and Narratives
				Similarity Between Dream and Narrative CCRT Components
				Negativity of Responses
		SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
			Note
			TABLE 1 Tailor-Made Wishes Scored From Dreams Alone for Ms. Apfel
			TABLE 2 Standard Category Wishes for Ms. Apfel
			TABLE 3 Standard Category Responses From Other or of Self for Ms. Apfel
			TABLE 4 Standard Category Wishes and Responses From Other or of Self for Ms. Bauman
			TABLE 5 Standard Category Wishes and Responses From Other or of Self for Mr. Crane
			TABLE 6 Agreement by Weighted Kappa of Two Judges in Scoring the CCRT
			TABLE 7 Percentage of Cases in Which a Standard Category CCRT Cluster Appeared as the First Rank, Most Frequent CCRT Cluster
			TABLE 8 Number of Participants With the Same Highest Frequency Clusters in Dreams and Narratives
			TABLE 9 Negativity of CCRT Components
	THE MEASUREMENT OF ACCURACY OF INTERPRETATIONS
		PROCEDURES
			Patients
			Therapist and Treatment Characteristics
			Measures
				Identifying Interpretations
				Combining Judges’ CCRT Formulations
				Accuracy of Interpretations
				Errors in Technique Scale
				Helping Alliance Counting Signs Scale
				Treatment Outcome
		RESULTS
			The Average Level of Accuracy of Interpretations Was Low
			The Predictors of Accuracy Were Unrelated to Each Other
			Accuracy of the Wish Plus Response From Other Was the Best Predictor of Outcome
			The Impact of Accurate Interpretations Was Not Limited to When the Alliance Was Positive
		DISCUSSION
			Congruence of Interpretations With the CCRT
			Noninteraction With the Helping Alliance
			Nonsignificant Relationship With the Errors in Technique Scale
			Limits of Correlational Findings
		CONCLUSIONS
			Note
			TABLE 1 Characteristics of Patients (N = 43)
			TABLE 2 Patient Diagnosis (N = 43)
			Figure 1.
			Figure 2.
			TABLE 3 Means and Standard Deviations for Accuracy Dimensions (N = 43)
			TABLE 4 Intercorrelations of Predictors
			TABLE 5 Prediction of Outcome by Accuracy, Helping Alliance, and Errors in Technique Measures (N = 43)
	SELF-UNDERSTANDING OF THE CCRT
		PROCEDURE
			Patients and Sessions
			Measures
				The CCRT Measure
				Self-Understanding of the CCRT
				Health-Sickness Rating Scale
				Outcome Measures
		RESULTS
			Reliability of Judging Self-Understanding Was Good
			Level of Self-Understanding Was Low
			Level of Self-Understanding Predicted Outcome; Change in Self-Understanding Did Not
		SUMMARY, DISCUSSION, AND CONCLUSIONS
			The Findings and Their Meaning
			The Search for Better Operational Measures
				Note
				TABLE 1 Interjudge Reliability of the Self-Understanding Scale
				TABLE 2 Mean Self-Understanding for Session 3 and Session 5 (N = 43)
				TABLE 3 Prediction of Outcome From Level of and Change in Self-Understanding (N = 43)
	THE PERSPECTIVE OF PATIENTS VERSUS THAT OF CLINICIANS IN THE ASSESSMENT OF CENTRAL RELATIONSHIP THEMES
		AIM
		PROCEDURE
		RESULTS
			Self-Report CCRT Questionnaire (SR-CCRT)
				Retest Reliability Was Moderate; Internal Consistency Was Marginal
				Three Factors Were Found
			Self-Interpretation of the RAP Interview
				Consistency Over Narratives Was High
				Correlation With the Self-Report CCRT Was Poor
			Clinical Judge’s Scoring: Comparisons With Self-Report and Self-Interpretation
				Patients Tended to Give High Ratings to Wishes Identified by the Clinicians
		SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION
		CONCLUSION
			EXHIBIT 1 Wishes Rated in the CCRT Self-Report Questionnaire
			TABLE 1 Reliability of Self-Report CCRT Questionnaire on Wishes
			TABLE 2 Factor Analysis of Wishes
			TABLE 3 Self-Interpretation of RAP: Consistency of Wishes Across 10 Relationship Episodes
			TABLE 4 Correlations Between Self-Report and Self-Interpretation
			TABLE 5 Comparison of Patient’s Report With Clinician-Identified Wishes
	STABILITY OF THE CCRT FROM AGE 3 TO 5
		BACKGROUND OF RELATED RESEARCH
			Clinical Retrospection
			Infancy Research
			Narratives Told by Young Children
		PROCEDURE
			Subjects
			A Doll Family Story Method For Collecting Narratives
			Data Analyses
			An Example of a Scored Narrative
			Compliance of 3- and 5-Year-Olds With the Narrative-Telling Task
		RESULTS
			Do the Judges Agree in Scoring the CCRT?
			How Pervasive Are the Clusters of CCRT Standard Categories Within Narratives at Age 3 and Age 5?
			Is There a Core Relationship Theme for Each Child?
			How Constant Does Each Child’s Profile of Clusters Remain From Age 3 to Age 5?
			How Constant From Age 3 to Age 5 Were the Highest Clusters of the CCRT Patterns?
			How Positive and How Negative Were the Relationship Patterns at Ages 3 and 5?
			Are There Gender Differences in Central Relationship Patterns at Ages 3 and 5?
		SUMMARY, DISCUSSION, AND CONCLUSIONS
		WHAT IS NEXT IN THIS LINE OF RESEARCH?
			Notes
			Figure 1. "Lost Car Keys" Story
			Figure 2.
			TABLE 1 Comparison of Children at Ages 3 and 5 for the Number of Times Highest or Next Highest for Each Wish Cluster (N = 19)
			TABLE 2 Comparison of Children at Ages 3 and 5 for the Number of Times Highest or Next Highest for Each Response From Other Cluster (N = 18)
			Table 3 Comparison of Children at Ages 3 and 5 for the Number of Times Highest or Next Highest for Each Response of Self Cluster (N = 18)
			TABLE 4 Positive and Negative CCRT Responses (Percentages)
	STABILITY OF THE CCRT FROM BEFORE PSYCHOTHERAPY STARTS TO THE EARLY SESSIONS
		METHOD
			The Core Conflictual Relationship Theme Method
			The RAP Interview Method
			Procedure
		RESULTS
			Reliability of the CCRTs Derived From the RAP Interviews
			Reliability of the CCRTs Derived From Therapy Sessions
			Correspondence Between CCRTs From RAPs (Before Therapy) and CCRTs From Sessions
		CONCLUSIONS
			Note
			TABLE 1 Interjudge Agreement and Reliability for the CCRT From the RAP Interview and Therapy Sessions, and Comparisons of CCRTs From RAP Interview Versus Therapy Sessions
	THE MEASUREMENT OF MASTERY OF RELATIONSHIP CONFLICTS
		MEASUREMENT OF MASTERY
		METHOD
		RESULTS
		SUMMARY, DISCUSSION, AND CONCLUSIONS
			Note
			TABLE 1 Mastery Scale, Version I
			TABLE 2 Pearson Correlations Between Mastery Scale Residual Change Scores and Clinical Outcome Scores
			Figure 1.
			Figure 2.
III CLINICAL USES OF THE CCRT
	THE EVERYDAY CLINICAL USES OF THE CCRT
		THE USES OF THE CCRT IN DYNAMIC PSYCHOTHERAPY
			As a Guide to Formulations and Interpretations
			As an Aid to Maintaining a Treatment Focus
			As a Help in Choosing a Part of the CCRT for Each Interpretation
			As a Help in Timing Interpretations
			As a Clue to the Conflicts Sparking the Formation of Symptoms
			As a Supplement to DSM Diagnoses
			As a Special Aid in the Functioning of Inpatient Units
		THE DIFFERENT CONSEQUENCES OF DIFFERENT PSYCHOTHERAPEUTIC SYSTEMS ON THE INTERPRETATIVE FOCUS
			Dynamic Therapy
			CCRT-Guided Dynamic Therapy
			Davanloo’s Therapy
			Sifneos’s Therapy
			Mann’s Therapy
			Cognitive Therapy
		PROCEDURES FOR THERAPISTS TO LEARN TO RELY ON THE CCRT IN PSYCHOTHERAPY
			Instruction in the CCRT During Supervision
			Scoring Practice Sets of Relationship Episodes
			Practice With CCRT-Based Interpretations During Tape Playbacks
			Training Through a Self-Reported and Self-Analyzed CCRT
			Training in the CCRT During Psychiatric Residency: A Survey of Therapists’ Benefits
		CONCLUSIONS
			Figure 1.
	ALTERNATIVE MEASURES OF THE CENTRAL RELATIONSHIP PATTERN
		SKETCHES OF THE ALTERNATIVE METHODS
			Plan Diagnosis
			Structural Analysis of Social Behavior (SASB)
			Configurational Analysis
			Frame
			Script Theory
			Patient’s Experience of the Relationship with the Therapist (PERT)
			Cyclical Maladaptive Pattern (CMP)
			Plan Analysis (PA)
			Impact Message Inventory, Form IIA (IMI)
			Clinical Evaluation Team
			The Seattle Psychotherapy Language Analysis Schema
			The Check List of Psychotherapy Transactions-Revised (CLOPT-R) and the Check List of Interpersonal Transactions-Revised (CLOIT-R)
			Idiographic Conflict Formulation (ICF)
			Consensual Response Formulation
			Quantitative Analysis of Interpersonal Themes (QUAINT)
			Personal Scripts
		COMPARISONS AMONG METHODS OF MEASURING CENTRAL RELATIONSHIP PATTERNS
		QUESTIONNAIRE MEASURES OF TRANSFERENCE PATTERNS
		SUMMARY, DISCUSSION, AND CONCLUSIONS
			Note
			TABLE 1 Central Relationship Pattern Measures Based on Sessions
IV WHAT’S NOW AND WHAT’S NEXT
	THE CONVERGENCE OF FREUD’S OBSERVATIONS ABOUT TRANSFERENCE WITH THE CCRT EVIDENCE
		FREUD’S OBSERVATIONS COMPARED WITH CCRT EVIDENCE
		DISCUSSION
			The Nature of Freud’s Observations
			The Correspondence of Freud’s Observations With CCRT Evidence
		CONCLUSIONS
			TABLE 1 Freud’s “Transference Template” Observations and the CCRT Evidence
			Figure 1
	WHERE WE ARE IN UNDERSTANDING THE CCRT
		HOW MUCH MORE RELIABLE IS THE CCRT METHOD THAN THE USUAL CLINICAL METHOD?
		DO TAILOR-MADE OR STANDARD CATEGORIES WORK BETTER?
		MIGHT THE TRANSFERENCE BE A MERE PRODUCT OF SUGGESTION BY THE THERAPIST?
		IS THE CCRT FROM THERAPY NARRATIVES SIMILAR TO THE CCRT FROM RAP NARRATIVES?
		ARE RAP NARRATIVES ABOUT “REAL” EVENTS SIMILAR TO “STORIES” FROM THE TAT?
		WOULD BEHAVIORAL ENACTMENTS OF RELATIONSHIPS REVEAL MORE THAN THE USUAL NARRATIVES ABOUT RELATIONSHIPS?
		WHAT WOULD BE LEARNED FROM SCORING SEQUENCES OF CCRT COMPONENTS?
		ARE DEFENSES CLASSIFIABLE WITHIN THE RESPONSES OF SELF?
		HOW CAN THE OBSERVATION BE TESTED THAT THE TRANSFERENCE IS “PARTLY OUT OF AWARENESS”
		WHY RELY ON NARRATIVES ABOUT RELATIONSHIPS AS THE BASIS FOR THE CCRT?
			Characteristics of Narratives
			The Truth Value of Narratives
			The Revelations of Narratives About Modes of Thought
			The Interpretability of Narratives
		HOW DID EACH PERSON’S CCRT ORIGINATE AND WHY IS IT SO PERSISTENT?
			Source Factor 1: Learning the Pattern From Parental Figures
			Source Factor 2: Needing to Gratify Certain Pressing Wishes
			Source Factor 3: Repeating of Traumatic Ideas and Scenes
			Source Factor 4: Repeating in the Service of Mastery
		HOW MUCH DOES THE CCRT CORRESPOND WITH THE TRANSFERENCE?
		CONCLUSIONS
	REFERENCES
	ABOUT THE AUTHORS