Paul Dierick

Client perception of therapeutic factors in group psychotherapy and growth groups: an empirically-based hierarchical model.

Abstract To assess group participants’ perceptions of therapeutic factors, we developed an extensive questionnaire of 155 items that was administered to 489 members of 78 psychotherapy and growth groups of client–centered/experiential, psychoanalytic, behavioral, Gestalt and drama– and bodily oriented orientations. Using multivariate analyses we found a model that reveals the structure and connections of therapeutic factors as they are differentiated in the experience of the group members. Our model encompasses three hierarchical levels of abstraction: 28 Basic scales that appeared to be structured into seven main scales (Group Cohesion, Interactional Confirmation, Cathartic Self–Revelation, Self–Insight and Progress, Observational Experiences, Getting Directives, and Interactional Confrontation) and two dimensions (Relational Climate and Psychological Work). Validity for these therapeutic factors was found in their grounded content, statistically analyzed constructs, importance ratings, and correlations to intermediate outcome measures.

Client perception of hindering factors in group psychotherapy and growth groups: no growth without pain? An empirical exploration

As part of the Leuven Group Psychotherapy Process Study, a questionnaire to assess group participants’ perceptions of hindering factors in group sessions was administered to 489 members of 78 psychotherapy and experiential learning groups of client-centered/experiential, psychoanalytic, behavioral, Gestalt, drama- and body-oriented orientations. In this article we focus on the specific meaning and impact of these hindering factors. Within this inquiry the following questions are empirically investigated: To what degree do group members experience these hindering factors and to what degree do they experience them as harmful? How do these hindering factors relate to therapeutic factors and to intermediate outcome ratings? Are they experienced differently as a function of severity of group members’ problems and as a function of therapeutic orientation? The central finding of the study points to the ambiguous character of hindering factors and their potential to become converted into corrective therapeutic experiences.

Client-centered/experiential group psychotherapy with borderline clients: specific processes and challenges

In this article a person-centered/experiential (PCE) approach of group therapeutic treatment for borderline clients in out-patient and day treatment is described. First, we focus on client-centered views on borderline processes. Then, we look at the general directives that are distilled from different borderline-focused treatment models to investigate to what extent these directives can be assimilated in a PCE approach. Next, we argue for a group therapeutic approach where possible and describe the selection criteria for participation. The core of this article describes the group process from the viewpoint of a client-centered/experiential and interpersonal orientation. A number of important processes and interventions are described according to the three main phases distinguished in the treatment process (beginning, middle and termination phase). These phases varyingly come to the fore in relation to changes in group composition. Typical borderline processes and challenges for the group therapist are illustrated with clinical vignettes.

Introduction to the special issue on person-centered/experiential group psychotherapy and growth groups

Although many person-centered/experiential colleagues are working with groups, not much has been published during the past 15 years about group psychotherapy and counseling from a person-centered and experiential (PCE) point of view (see www.pce-literature.org), except for some survey chapters in handbooks (Lietaer & Dierick, 1996; Page, Weiss & Lietaer, 2002; Schmid & O’Hara, 2013). Therefore we wanted to invite the group therapists of our PCE community to write about their work. We were happy to receive seven manuscripts. Several authors describe how they are working in their specific settings, with specific client populations and how they try to deal with process difficulties they are confronted with. Other contributions consider important theoretical and research questions. The first three articles refer to group work with specific client populations. Spence and Smale describe the development of a time-limited group for bereaved people in a UK hospice setting. They pay particular attention to participants’ need for both the security provided by adequate structure, and the therapeutic opportunities offered by openness to the process as it develops. They also focus on areas of exploration often encountered within this group setting. Snijders, Amons and Dierick describe a person-centered/experiential approach of group therapeutic treatment for borderline clients in out-patient and day treatment. They look at the general directives that are distilled from different borderline-focused treatment models to investigate to what extent these directives can be assimilated in a PCE approach. Typical borderline processes and challenges for the group therapist – in the beginning, middle and termination phases of group development – are illustrated with clinical vignettes. Brouzos, Vassilopoulos and Baourda describe an empirical study in which they investigated the impact of member-perceived Rogerian core conditions of the group leader in a psycho-educational group for children with social anxiety problems. Their findings provide tentative support for the association of member-leader relationship with group counseling outcome and also suggest that children presenting a moderate level of change in their perception of facilitative conditions are most likely to benefit from a brief psycho-educational group. The following two articles focus on “process difficulties” in group psychotherapy. Hutchison discusses the issue – more common in group psychotherapy than in individual therapy – of anxiety-provoking situations where members may feel temporarily overwhelmed. He emphasizes the special responsibility of the group facilitator to assist in affect regulation and to help provide a safe reflective environment in which members can optimally symbolize and process their experience. On the basis of a large empirical study (on 78 groups facilitated by therapists of different orientations) Lietaer and Dierick focus on the specific meaning and impact of client-perceived