Comparativa de indicadores clínicos entre terapia presencial y terapia online por videoconferencia: éxito, adherencia al tratamiento y eficiencia / Comparison of clinical indicators between face-to-face therapy and online therapy via videoconference: success, adherence to treatment and efficiency

La terapia psicológica online por videoconferencia ha sido una alternativa ampliamente utilizada tras la pandemia por COVID-19. Este estudio tiene los propósitos de seguir estudiando el éxito de esta modalidad además de otros indicadores clínicos menos estudiados, como la eficiencia y la adherencia al tratamiento en comparación con la terapia en modalidad presencial. Se utilizaron los datos de 174 participantes, 87 de cada modalidad. Ambas modalidades de tratamiento resultaron exitosas, sin haber diferencias entre ellas salvo en el porcentaje de objetivos terapéuticos cumplidos, mayor en la modalidad online. No se encontraron diferencias en adherencia al tratamiento. La eficiencia fue mayor en la modalidad presencial en la fase de tratamiento y en la terapia en su conjunto, no siendo así en la fase de evaluación. Se plantean hipótesis que intentan explicar estas diferencias, entre ellas las referidas a la relación terapéutica, además de abrir la puerta al planteamiento de futuros estudios que continúen en esta línea de investigación. (AU)

Videoconferencing psychotherapy has been a widely used alternative in the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic. This study aims to further study the success of this modality and other less studied clinical indicators, such as adherence to treatment and efficiency, compared to the face-to-face modality. Data from 174 participants, 87 of each modality were used. Both treatment modalities were successful, with no differences between them except for the percentage of therapeutic objectives achieved, which was higher in the online modality. No differences were found in adherence to treatment. Efficiency was higher in the face-to-face modality both in the treatment phase and in the therapy as a whole, but not in the assessment phase. We put forward several hypotheses to try to explain these differences, some of them related to the therapeutic relationship. The conclusions of this study open the door to future research lines in the same direction. (AU)

Verbal Behavior Analysis of Expert and Inexperienced Therapists Applying the Socratic Method.

The Socratic method, as an eminently verbal procedure, will be analyzed from a behavioral perspective in order to clarify how verbal conditioning works within. This work compares the verbalizations that expert and inexperienced therapists emit during Socratic method to find out which and why certain therapist verbalizations are most successful in changing client responses. The sample consisted of 113 Socratic method fragments from 18 cases, analyzed by observational methodology. The expert therapists had more than 6 years of experience, the inexperienced less than 2. Experts had fewer failure Socratic method fragments, but there were no differences in successful ones. The way of questioning had a different pattern: Inexperienced therapists suggested more the response, experts used more didactic verbalizations; also, experts used the aversive component more and contingently. The creation of guidelines based on functional description of verbal interaction and the need for novice psychologists training are some implications of these results.

Verbal Behavior Analysis of Expert and Inexperienced Therapists Applying the Socratic Method

The Socratic method, as an eminently verbal procedure, will be analyzed from a behavioral perspective in order to clarify how verbal conditioning works within. This work compares the verbalizations that expert and inexperienced therapists emit during Socratic method to find out which and why certain therapist verbalizations are most successful in changing client responses. The sample consisted of 113 Socratic method fragments from 18 cases, analyzed by observational methodology. The expert therapists had more than 6 years of experience, the inexperienced less than 2. Experts had fewer failure Socratic method fragments, but there were no differences in successful ones. The way of questioning had a different pattern: Inexperienced therapists suggested more the response, experts used more didactic verbalizations; also, experts used the aversive component more and contingently. The creation of guidelines based on functional description of verbal interaction and the need for novice psychologists training are some implications of these results. (AU)