Developing the adjudicated case study method

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

In this commentary we discuss Miller’s Panel of Psychological Inquiry (PPI) and Bohart’s Research Jury method approaches to the development of the adjudicated case study method, as represented by the papers assembled for this issue of Pragmatic Case Studies in Psychotherapy. In our view, the case studies presented here demonstrate the rapidly developing potential offered by this approach for psychotherapy research and reveal many parallels to recent research using the Hermeneutic Single Case Efficacy Design (HSCED) model. In our view, each of the three models has taken significant steps forward in adapting particular aspects of the legal process as viable psychotherapy research procedures. In this commentary we summarize the HSCED method, then take readers through the issues of the sources of the evidence used; ways in which that evidence is tested; claims, burden and standard of proof; and the handling of the adjudication process itself. We conclude with recommendations for further development of adjudicated case study methods.
LanguageEnglish
Pages230-241
Number of pages12
JournalPragmatic Case Studies in Psychotherapy
Volume7
Issue number1
Publication statusPublished - 2011

Fingerprint

study method
hermeneutics
research method
design method

Keywords

  • adjudicated case study method
  • panel of psychological inquiry
  • research jury method
  • hermeneutic single-case efficacy design
  • psychotherapy research
  • evidence
  • burden of proof
  • cross-examination
  • case studies
  • clinical case studies

Cite this

@article{712fcc56c50c48988f52288dd58f9470,
title = "Developing the adjudicated case study method",
abstract = "In this commentary we discuss Miller’s Panel of Psychological Inquiry (PPI) and Bohart’s Research Jury method approaches to the development of the adjudicated case study method, as represented by the papers assembled for this issue of Pragmatic Case Studies in Psychotherapy. In our view, the case studies presented here demonstrate the rapidly developing potential offered by this approach for psychotherapy research and reveal many parallels to recent research using the Hermeneutic Single Case Efficacy Design (HSCED) model. In our view, each of the three models has taken significant steps forward in adapting particular aspects of the legal process as viable psychotherapy research procedures. In this commentary we summarize the HSCED method, then take readers through the issues of the sources of the evidence used; ways in which that evidence is tested; claims, burden and standard of proof; and the handling of the adjudication process itself. We conclude with recommendations for further development of adjudicated case study methods.",
keywords = "adjudicated case study method, panel of psychological inquiry, research jury method, hermeneutic single-case efficacy design, psychotherapy research, evidence, burden of proof, cross-examination, case studies, clinical case studies",
author = "Susan Stephen and Robert Elliott",
year = "2011",
language = "English",
volume = "7",
pages = "230--241",
journal = "Pragmatic Case Studies in Psychotherapy",
issn = "1553-0124",
number = "1",

}

Developing the adjudicated case study method. / Stephen, Susan; Elliott, Robert.

In: Pragmatic Case Studies in Psychotherapy, Vol. 7, No. 1, 2011, p. 230-241.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Developing the adjudicated case study method

AU - Stephen, Susan

AU - Elliott, Robert

PY - 2011

Y1 - 2011

N2 - In this commentary we discuss Miller’s Panel of Psychological Inquiry (PPI) and Bohart’s Research Jury method approaches to the development of the adjudicated case study method, as represented by the papers assembled for this issue of Pragmatic Case Studies in Psychotherapy. In our view, the case studies presented here demonstrate the rapidly developing potential offered by this approach for psychotherapy research and reveal many parallels to recent research using the Hermeneutic Single Case Efficacy Design (HSCED) model. In our view, each of the three models has taken significant steps forward in adapting particular aspects of the legal process as viable psychotherapy research procedures. In this commentary we summarize the HSCED method, then take readers through the issues of the sources of the evidence used; ways in which that evidence is tested; claims, burden and standard of proof; and the handling of the adjudication process itself. We conclude with recommendations for further development of adjudicated case study methods.

AB - In this commentary we discuss Miller’s Panel of Psychological Inquiry (PPI) and Bohart’s Research Jury method approaches to the development of the adjudicated case study method, as represented by the papers assembled for this issue of Pragmatic Case Studies in Psychotherapy. In our view, the case studies presented here demonstrate the rapidly developing potential offered by this approach for psychotherapy research and reveal many parallels to recent research using the Hermeneutic Single Case Efficacy Design (HSCED) model. In our view, each of the three models has taken significant steps forward in adapting particular aspects of the legal process as viable psychotherapy research procedures. In this commentary we summarize the HSCED method, then take readers through the issues of the sources of the evidence used; ways in which that evidence is tested; claims, burden and standard of proof; and the handling of the adjudication process itself. We conclude with recommendations for further development of adjudicated case study methods.

KW - adjudicated case study method

KW - panel of psychological inquiry

KW - research jury method

KW - hermeneutic single-case efficacy design

KW - psychotherapy research

KW - evidence

KW - burden of proof

KW - cross-examination

KW - case studies

KW - clinical case studies

UR - http://pcsp.libraries.rutgers.edu/index.php/pcsp/issue/view/96

UR - http://reaper64.scc-net.rutgers.edu/journals/index.php/pcsp/article/viewFile/1079/2521

M3 - Article

VL - 7

SP - 230

EP - 241

JO - Pragmatic Case Studies in Psychotherapy

T2 - Pragmatic Case Studies in Psychotherapy

JF - Pragmatic Case Studies in Psychotherapy

SN - 1553-0124

IS - 1

ER -