Advanced Search

Regular Article | August 01, 2005

Case Formulation in Psychotherapy: Revitalizing Its Usefulness as a Clinical Tool

Kang Sim, M.D.; Kok Peng Gwee, M.D.; Anthony Bateman, M.D.

Academic Psychiatry 2005;29:289-292. 10.1176/appi.ap.29.3.289

View Article Information

Received August 1, 2004; revised October 3, 2004; accepted October 19, 2004. Dr. Sim is with McLean Hospital/Harvard Medical School, Belmont, Massachusetts. Dr. Gwee is with the Institute of Mental Health/Woodbridge Hospital, Singapore, Singapore. Dr. Bateman is with St. Ann's Hospital, Halliwick Unit, London, United Kingdom. Address correspondence to Dr. Sim, McLean Hospital/Harvard Medical School, 115 Mill St., Belmont, MA 02467; kang_sim@imh.com.sg (E-mail). Copyright © 2005 Academic Psychiatry.

Article

References

text A A A

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Case formulation has been recognized to be a useful conceptual and clinical tool in psychotherapy as diagnosis itself does not focus on the underlying causes of a patient’s problems. Case formulation can fill the gap between diagnosis and treatment, with the potential to provide insights into the integrative, explanatory, prescriptive, predictive, and therapist aspects of a case. Despite the acknowledgment that case formulation is a basic, necessary, and key clinical skill, it is still largely undertaught and underlearned. Some of the issues faced in the development of a case formulation include that of immediacy versus comprehensiveness, complexity versus simplicity, observation versus organization, and the need for cultural sensitivity toward each individual patient. METHODS: The authors propose five aspects of case formulation beneficial to therapists and residents in training. CONCLUSIONS: The authors argue that case formulation remains an important and indispensable integrative tool for therapists and residents in training who are involved in psychotherapeutic interventions.

Figures in this Article

The science of formulations must be combined with art. Something vital is lost if the formulation does not capture the essence of the case.

—Denman (1)

Case formulation is a topic of interest in psychotherapy not only in its utility as a conceptual and clinical tool (2, 3) but also because of its potential as a research tool into the outcomes of psychotherapeutic work (4—6). As clinicians, we seek to help our patients with accurate diagnoses and effective management plans. In the process, we need to identify a patient’s main problems and understand the predisposing, precipitating, and perpetuating factors of these problems as well as the relationship between these factors within the patient. The subsequent treatment plans can and often do involve psychotherapy with goals ranging from reduction of symptoms, improvement of functioning, prevention of relapse, increase in insight, and recognizing obstacles to progress in therapy.

However, diagnosis itself does not complete the process of evaluation just as descriptive and atheoretical classifications such as DSM—IV criteria do not necessarily focus on the underlying cause of a patient’s problems (7). Certainly they do not help us predict which patients are suitable for which therapy. Suitability is an ill-defined concept but commonly refers to an individual’s psychological characteristics that facilitate a good fit between the method and the establishment of a therapeutic alliance (8). Therapists must evaluate patient suitability for specific types of psychotherapy and information such as demographic features, and symptom presentation are often inadequate; hence something more is needed. Case formulation can fill this gap between diagnosis and treatment and can be seen to lie at the intersection of etiology and description, theory and practice and science and art. This is the case for psychotherapies such as dynamic psychotherapy, interpersonal psychotherapy, and cognitive behavior therapy (CBT). This article discusses the definition of case formulation, highlights its clinical utility for therapists and residents in training, and argues for its indispensability as an important integrative, clinical tool despite the inherent tensions involved in the process of case formulation.

Definition and Useful Models

Abstract | Definition and Useful Models | Importance and Impact | Conclusions | References

There is no agreed definition of case formulation by practitioners of a specific model of therapy or between practitioners of different models, and the formulation generally follows the theoretical approach and attempts to integrate different perspectives (9, 10). In the literature, various authors have proposed various definitions of case formulation but essentially cover the same scope (i.e., the descriptive, prescriptive and predictive aspects of the case [11—13]). Sperry et al. (11) define case formulation as "a process of linking a group of data and information to define a coherent pattern and it helps to establish diagnosis, provides for explanation and prepares the clinician for therapeutic work and prediction." Wolpe and Turkat (12) define it as "a hypothesis that relates all of the presenting complaints to one another, explains why these difficulties have developed and provides predictions about the patient’s condition." In short, it is a succinct description of the chief features of the case as well as an encapsulation of the diagnosis, etiology, treatment options, and prognosis of patients’ problem. Denman (1) went further by maintaining that the attributes of a good formulation capture the essence of the case and include presence of a theoretical basis, sensitivity about the patient, and specificity to the patient.

An example of a case formulation model in CBT is one proposed by Persons (13), which is comprised of seven components, namely problem list, core beliefs, precipitants and activating situations, origins, working hypothesis, treatment plan, and predicted obstacles to treatment. There are two aspects of assessment in this model: the structural and functional aspects. The structural aspect derives heavily from the theory of psychopathology by Beck (14) in that the problems of the patient are the result of the activation of core cognitions by stressful life events, and these often have early childhood origins. At a functional level, it draws from behavior therapy with emphasis on the identification and assessment of the functional utility of maladaptive behavioral patterns.

In dynamic psychotherapy, an example of a good formulation structure is one prepared by Perry et al. (15), which includes a summarizing statement, description of nondynamic factors, description of core psychodynamics using the ego psychology, object relations, self psychology model, and prognostic assessment, which identifies the potential areas of resistance in therapy.

Importance and Impact

Abstract | Definition and Useful Models | Importance and Impact | Conclusions | References

Despite the acknowledgment by most clinicians and therapists that case formulation is a basic, necessary, and key clinical tool, it remains an undertaught and underlearned clinical skill (15—17). Ben-Aron and McCormick (16) noted that 80% of the respondents in their survey believed that the topic of case formulation was important but insufficiently emphasized in residency training. A study conducted by Fleming and Patterson (17), only 31% of the residents stated that guidelines for case formulation were provided by schools. This may be partly due to misconceptions surrounding topics such as 1) that only long-term cases require case formulation; 2) case formulation can be elaborate and time consuming; 3) there is no need for written formulation; and 4) the concern that the focus on formulation may shift the therapist focus from the actual communication of the patient. However, Perry et al. (15) argued that case formulation can be useful for both short-term and long-term cases and need not be time consuming. In addition, it may in fact save more time due to the expediency of an appropriate therapeutic strategy. The written form is preferable to oral presentation in order to allow for longitudinal comparison and reformulation whenever necessary, and it is also more likely to facilitate rather than hinder the communication of the patient.

There are clear benefits of having a case formulation for therapists and residents in training and these are related to the following five aspects of the case: integrative, explanatory, prescriptive, predictive, and therapist.

Integrative

A case formulation summarizes the salient features of the case in a nutshell (18, 19) and identifies important issues quickly (20), particularly for complex cases with multiple problems (21). Furthermore, the act of writing helps to organize and integrate the clinical data around a linchpin and allows the clinician to focus on the heart of the matter in each individual case (22).

Explanatory

The case formulation provides insight into the intra- as well as interindividual aspects of the case (23), thus allowing a better grasp of the evolution of the illness and its impact on the patient and caregivers. It also gives a framework to examine the interactions between underlying dynamic and nondynamic factors, including psychological and neurobiological vulnerability, in understanding the development, maintenance, and resolution of a patient’s difficulties (24).

Prescriptive

At the prescriptive level, an adequate formulation is a precious blueprint guiding therapy, including the setting of appropriate goals and choice of intervention point, modality, and strategy (25). This is of value, especially for the trainees, in being grounded in the formulation and staying the course rather than feeling the need to change tack with a patient’s intense and shifting moods or behaviors in treatment (24).

Predictive

The initial formulation sheds light on the prognosis of the case (26) and points toward a need to redirect the focus onto other areas such as exploring other underlying core beliefs and challenging other automatic negative thoughts when therapy is not progressing. It also provides a useful baseline marker for later comparison and reformulation as new information unfolds and as therapy outcome is assessed over time (27). In reality, a final conceptualization never exists unless the patient is fully recovered. The process is iterative with constant revalidation with the patient. In some therapies this is done by presentation to the patient either verbally or in writing, but in dynamic therapies it is done through interpretation using the transference relationship to highlight the new understanding.

Therapist

A case formulation helps the therapist to understand the nature of the therapeutic relationship, relationship difficulties, and, ultimately, to experience greater empathy for the patient beyond the presenting problems (27). Patients’ explanatory model for their problems and their own formulation and expectations for treatment should be explored as well. Thus, case formulation allows for anticipation and management of therapy interfering events such as noncompliance with homework, acting in and out behaviors, or other forms of resistance to change in therapy, including pharmacological treatment (6, 24).

Inherent Tensions and Inadequacies

The issues faced in the development of a case formulation include immediacy versus comprehensiveness, complexity versus simplicity, observation versus organization, and cultural sensitivity.

Immediacy Versus Comprehensiveness

Immediacy versus comprehensiveness involves how soon and how complete a case should be conceptualized. In this regard, the therapist must identify what is needed in order for a patient’s condition to improve, which should be considered in comparison with other aspects of the patient’s condition. It is invariably linked with the therapeutic frame and the contracted sessions. The foci may be more short-term in dealing with the here and now in individual, short-term dynamic psychotherapy compared with long-term dynamic psychotherapy.

Complexity Versus Simplicity

The tension of complexity versus simplicity relates to the fact that if the conceptualization is too simple, salient aspects of the case may be missed, and, conversely, if the conceptualization is too complex, it may become too unwieldy and time consuming for practical use.

Observation Versus Organization

If a therapist focuses mainly on clinical data and his or her subjective feeling state, paying no heed to the underlying organizing hypotheses, opportunities for meaningful interpretation of the patient’s difficulties may be missed. Conversely, if too much emphasis is placed on the therapist’s own hypotheses and organization about a case, the empirical link with the personal experiences of the patient may be lost. Here, it is important to be aware that personal biases, countertransference, past experiences, and preconceptions of the therapist can also affect and distort clinical evaluation of a case.

Cultural Sensitivity

The therapist must seek a formulation that is sensitive to the cultural context within which a patient is found so that the patient can feel more understood (28).

In addition, research on psychotherapy (including case formulation) can be fraught with issues pertaining to validity, replicability, standardization, and comparability of content by different therapists (6). Moreover, as with all theoretical models and approaches, a therapist must not be too confined to a single model or approach, although it may provide a certain structure and discipline to the evaluation of the presenting problems of the patient. Instead, the therapist should be able to view it as part of a holistic approach, encompassing the biological, psychological, and social, cultural, and spiritual perspectives of the patient so that other significant details are not lost. Notwithstanding the above comments, available research has supported the hypothesis testing approach and process to patient evaluation (5, 29), although more data about its translation to treatment efficacy or effectiveness outcome studies are still needed (26).

Conclusions

Abstract | Definition and Useful Models | Importance and Impact | Conclusions | References

Case formulation in psychotherapy is a useful clinical, therapeutic, and integrative tool for the therapist and residents in training. Regarding diagnosis and treatment, it serves as a practical tool to translate diagnosis to specific interventions. Concerning theory and practice, it serves as a connection between theories of psychotherapy and the application of these theories to the particular patient. Regarding science and art, it encapsulates scientific principles and an understanding of the uniqueness and humanity of the person in therapy. Case formulation is an important and indispensable tool in psychotherapeutic interventions.

References

Abstract | Definition and Useful Models | Importance and Impact | Conclusions | References

Denman C: What is the point of a formulation, in The Art and Science of Assessment in Psychotherapy. Edited by Mace C. London, Routledge, 1994, pp 167—181

Perry JC: Scientific progress in psychodynamic formulation. Psychiatry 1989; 52:245—249[PubMed]

Berger RM: Characteristics of optimal clinical case formulations: the linchpin concept. Am J Psychotherapy 1998; 52:287—300

Barber JP, Crits-Christoph P: Advances in measures of psychodynamic formulations. J Consult Clin Psychol 1993; 61:574—585[PubMed][CrossRef]

Persons JB, Mooney KA, Padesky CA: Inter-rater reliability of cognitive behavioural case formulations. Cogn Ther Res 1995; 19:21—34[CrossRef]

Margison FR, Barkham M, Evans C, et al: Measurement and psychotherapy: evidence-based practice and practice-based evidence. Br J Psychiatry 2000; 177:123—130[PubMed][CrossRef]

Shapiro T: The psychodynamic formulation in child and adolescent psychiatry. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry 1989; 28:675—680[PubMed][CrossRef]

Weiner IB: Principles of Psychotherapy. New York, John Wiley & Sons, 1998

Friedman RS, Lister P: The current status of psychodynamic formulation. Psychiatry 1987; 50:126—141[PubMed]

Goldsmith SR, Mandell AJ: The dynamic formulation. Am J Psychiatry 1969; 125:152—157

Sperry L, Gudeman JE, Blackwell B, et al: Psychiatric case formulations. Washington, DC, American Psychiatric Association, 2000

Wolpe J, Turkat ID: Behavioural formulations of clinical cases, in Behavioural Case Formulation. Edited by Turkat ID. New York, Plenum Press, 1985, pp 5—36

Persons JB: Case conceptualisation in cognitive-behavior therapy, in Cognitive Therapies in Action: Evolving Innovative Practice. Edited by Kuehlwein KT, Rosen H. San Francisco, Jossey-Bass, 1993, pp 33—53

Beck AT: Cognitive therapy and the Emotional Disorders. New York, International Universities Press, 1976

Perry S, Cooper AM, Michels R: The psychodynamic formulation. Am J Psychiatry 1987; 144:543—550[PubMed]

Ben-Aron M, McCormick WO: The teaching of formulation: facts and deficiencies. Can J Psychiatry 1980; 25:163—166[PubMed]

Fleming JA, Patterson PG: The teaching of case formulation in Canada. Can J Psychiatry 1993; 38:345—350[PubMed]

Weerasekera P: Formulation: a multiperspective model. Can J Psychiatry 1993; 38:351—358[PubMed]

Riesenberg-Malcolm C: Conceptualisation of clinical facts in the analytic process. Int J Psychoanal 1994; 75:1031—1040[PubMed]

Haynes SN, O’Brien WH: Functional analysis in behaviour therapy. Clin Psychol Rev 1990; 10:649—668[CrossRef]

Persons JB: The advantages of studying psychological phenomena rather than psychiatric diagnoses. Am Psychologist 1986; 41:1252—1260[CrossRef]

Bergner RM: Characteristics of optimal clinical case formulations: the linchpin concept. Am J Psychotherapy 1998; 52:287—300

Curtis JT, Silberschatz G: The plan formulation method, in Handbook of Psychotherapy Case Formulation. Edited by Eells TD. New York, Guilford, 1997, pp 116—136

Summers RF: The psychodynamic formulation updated. Am J Psychotherapy 2003; 57:39—51

Horowitz MJ: Configurational analysis for case formulation. Psychiatry 1997; 60:111—119[PubMed]

Eells TD, Kendjelic EM, Lucas CP: What’s in a case formulation? development and use of a content coding manual. J Psychother Pract Res 1998; 7:144—153[PubMed]

Horowitz LM, Rosenberg SE, Ureno G, et al: Psychodynamic formulation, consensual response method, and interpersonal problems. J Consult Clin Psychol 1989; 57:599—606 [PubMed][CrossRef]

Lo HT, Fung KP: Culturally competent psychotherapy. Can J Psychiatry 2003; 48:161—170[PubMed]

Kanfer FH: Target selection for clinical change programs. Behav Assess 1985; 7:7—20