Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-lj6df Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T14:53:06.553Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Method of Levels: initial steps in assessing adherence and the development of a qualitative framework for mapping clients' control hierarchies

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 September 2009

Timothy Bird
Affiliation:
School of Psychological Sciences, University of Manchester, UK
Warren Mansell*
Affiliation:
School of Psychological Sciences, University of Manchester, UK
Sara Tai
Affiliation:
School of Psychological Sciences, University of Manchester, UK
*
*Author for correspondence: Dr W. Mansell, Senior Lecturer in Psychology, School of Psychological Sciences, Coupland I, University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester M13 9PL, UK. (email: warren.mansell@manchester.ac.uk)

Abstract

Method of Levels (MOL) is a form of cognitive therapy based on Perceptual Control Theory (PCT). This paper presents the initial steps towards four methods of establishing the validity of MOL. First, the session was rated by two independent experts for its adherence to MOL using a newly developed 6-item scale based on the Cognitive Therapy Rating Scale. Second, each therapist utterance within a session of MOL was coded and categorized in terms of the therapist's goal to test for adherence to the two specified goals of MOL. Third, a macroanalysis of a MOL session utilizing interpretative phenomenological analysis hypothesized the control hierarchies involved in a client's presenting problem and their zones of conflict. Fourth, a microanalysis of a brief interchange between the therapist and client explored its adherence to PCT. These methods of establishing validity are introduced and explored for later use in larger scale studies. The limitations of the present study and suggestions for future research are discussed.

Type
Original Research
Copyright
Copyright © British Association for Behavioural and Cognitive Psychotherapies 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Recommended follow-up reading

Carey, TA (2006). The Method of Levels: How to Do Psychotherapy Without Getting in the Way. Hayward, CA: Living Control Systems.Google Scholar
Mansell, W (2005). Control theory and psychopathology: an integrative approach. Psychology and Psychotherapy: Theory Research and Practice 78, 141178.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

References

Antony, MM, Bieling, PJ, Cox, BJ, Enns, MW, Swinson, RP (1998). Psychometric properties of the 42-item and 21-item versions of the Depression Anxiety Stress Scales in clinical groups and a community sample. Psychological Assessment 10, 176181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beck, AT (1967). Depression: Clinical, Experimental and Theoretical Aspects. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Blackburn, I, James, IA, Milne, DL, Baker, C, Standart, S, Garland, A, Reichelt, FK (2001). The revised Cognitive Therapy Scale (CTS-R): psychometric properties. Behaviour and Cognitive Psychotherapy 29, 431446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, TA, Antony, MM, Barlow, DH (1992). Psychometric properties of the Penn State Worry Questionnaire in a clinical anxiety disorders sample. Behaviour Research and Therapy 30, 3337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carey, TA (2005). Can patients specify treatment parameters? A preliminary investigation. Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy 12, 326335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carey, TA (2006). The Method of Levels: How to Do Psychotherapy Without Getting in the Way. Hayward, CA: Living Control Systems.Google Scholar
Carey, TA (2008). Hold That Thought: Two Steps to Effective Counselling and Psychotherapy with the Method of Levels. Villa Ridge, Missouri: Newview.Google Scholar
Carey, TA, Carey, M, Mullan, RJ, Spratt, CG, Spratt, MB (2009). Assessing the statistical, clinical, and personal significance of the Method of Levels. Behavioural and Cognitive Psychotherapy 37, 311324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carey, TA, Carey, M, Stalker, K, Mullan, RJ, Murray, LK, Spratt, MB (2006). What happens when clients realise that yes, they can change? The flick of a switch. Mental Health Today (October issue), 20–33.Google Scholar
Carver, CS, Scheier, MR (1981). Attention and Self-regulation: A Control-theory Approach to Human Behavior. New York: Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Denman, C (1994). What is the point of a formulation. In: The Art and Science of Assessment in Psychotherapy (ed. London, M. C.), pp. 167181. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Elliott, R, Fischer, CT, Rennie, DL (1999). Evolving guidelines for publication of qualitative research studies in psychology and related fields. British Journal of Clinical Psychology 38, 215229.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Emmons, RA, King, LA (1988). Conflict among personal strivings: immediate and long-term implications for psychological and physical well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 54, 10401048.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Geertz, C (ed.) (1973). The Interpretation of Culture. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Goldstein, DM (2008). The MOL Therapy Case Study of AF. Presented at the CSG 2008 Annual Conference.Google Scholar
Hayes, SC (2003). Acceptance and commitment therapy, relational frame theory, and the third wave of behavioural and cognitive therapies. Behaviour Therapy 35, 639665.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henry, JD, Crawford, JR (2005). The short-form version of the Depression Anxiety Stress Scales (DASS-21): construct validity and normative data in a large non-clinical sample. British Journal of Clinical Psychology 44, 227239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Higginson, S, Mansell, W (2008). What is the mechanism of psychological change? A qualitative analysis of six individuals who experienced personal change and recovery. Psychology and Psychotherapy: Theory, Research and Practice 81, 309328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landis, JR, Koch, GG (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 33, 159174.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lovibond, PF, Lovibond, SH (1995). The structure of negative emotional states: comparison of the Depression Anxiety Stress Scales (DASS) with the Beck Depression and Anxiety Inventories. Behaviour Research and Therapy 33, 335343.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lovibond, SH, Lovibond, PF (1993). Manual for the Depression Anxiety Stress Scales (DASS). Psychology Foundation Monograph (available from The Psychology Foundation, Room 1005 Mathews Building, University of New South Wales, NSW 2052, Australia).Google Scholar
Mansell, W (2008). Perceptual Control Theory as an integrative framework and Method of Levels as a cognitive therapy: what are the pros and cons? The Cognitive Behaviour Therapist. Published online 2 December 2008. doi:10.1017/S1754470X08000093.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mansell, W (2005). Control theory and psychopathology: an integrative approach. Psychology and Psychotherapy: Theory Research and Practice 78, 141178.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McPhail, C, Powers, WT, Tucker, CW (1992). Simulating individual and collective action in temporary gatherings. Social Science Computer Review 10, 128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meyer, TJ, Miller, ML, Metzger, RL, Borkovec, TD (1990). Development and validation of the Penn State Worry Questionnaire. Behaviour Research and Therapy 28, 487495.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Moore, RK (2007). PRESENCE: a human-inspired architecture for speech-based human machine interaction. IEEE Transactions on Computers 56, 11761188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oppenheim, AN (1992). Questionnaire Design Interviewing and Attitude Measurement, 2nd edn. London, UK: Pinter.Google Scholar
Powers, WT (1973). Behavior: The Control of Perception. Chicago: Aldine.Google Scholar
Powers, WT (2005). Behavior: The Control of Perception, 2nd edn. New Canaan, CT: Benchmark.Google Scholar
Powers, WT, Clark, RK, McFarland, RL (1960). A general feedback theory of human behavior. Part II. Perceptual and Motor Skills 11, 309323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rubin, HJ, Rubin, LS (1995). Qualitative Interviewing: The Art of Hearing Data. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Runkel, PJ (2003). People as Living Things. The Psychology of Perceptual Control. Hayward, CA: Living Control Systems Publishing.Google Scholar
Sim, K, Gwee, KP, Bateman, A (2005). Case formulation in psychotherapy: revitalizing its usefulness as a clinical tool. Academic Psychiatry 29, 289292.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Smith, JA (1996). Beyond the divide between cognition and discourse: using interpretative phenomenological analysis in health psychology. Psychology and Health 11, 261271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, JA (ed.) (2008). Qualitative Psychology: A Practical Guide to Research Methods. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Smith, JA, Flowers, P, Osborn, M (1997). Interpretative phenomenological analysis and health psychology. In: Material Discourses of Health and Illness (ed. Yardley, L.), pp. 6891. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Smith, JA, Osborn, M (2008). Interpretative phenomenological analysis. In: Qualitative Psychology: A Practical Guide to Research Methods (ed. Smith, J. A.), pp. 5180. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Van Rijsoort, S, Emmelkamp, P, Vervaeke, G (1999). The Penn State Worry Questionnaire and the Worry Domains Questionnaire: structure, reliability and validity. Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy 6 297307.3.0.CO;2-E>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Young, JE, Beck, AT (1980). Cognitive Therapy Scale. Unpublished manuscript. University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Bird supplementary material

Transcript.doc

Download Bird supplementary material(File)
File 116.7 KB
Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.