ABSTRACT
This article illustrates the application of an adjudicated form of hermeneutic single-case efficacy design, a critical-reflective method for inferring change and therapeutic influence in single therapy cases. The client was a 61-year-old European-American male diagnosed with panic and bridge phobia. He was seen for 23 sessions of individual process-experiential/emotion-focused therapy. In this study, affirmative and skeptic teams of researchers developed opposing arguments regarding whether the client changed over therapy and whether therapy was responsible for these changes. Three judges representing different theoretical orientations then assessed data and arguments, rendering judgments in favor of the affirmative side. The authors discuss clinical implications and recommendations for future interpretive case study research.
