Therapist interventions using the Psychodynamic Interventions Rating Scale (PIRS) in dynamic therapy, psychoanalysis and CBT.

Abstract One requirement for psychotherapy research is an accurate assessment of therapeutic interventions across studies. This study compared frequency and depth of therapist interventions from a dynamic perspective across four studies, conducted in four countries, including three treatment arms of psychodynamic psychotherapy, and one each of psychoanalysis and CBT. All studies used the Psychodynamic Intervention Rating Scales (PIRS) to identify 10 interventions from transcribed whole sessions early and later in treatment. The PIRS adequately categorized all interventions, except in CBT (only 91-93% categorized). As hypothesized, interpretations were present in all dynamic therapies and relatively absent in CBT. Proportions of interpretations increased over time. Defense interpretations were more common than transference interpretations, which were most prevalent in psychoanalysis. Depth of interpretations also increased over time. These data can serve as norms for measuring where on the supportive-interpretive continuum a dynamic treatment lies, as well as identify potentially mutative interventions for further process and outcome study.