Effects of Emotionally-focused Couples Therapy on the Marital Intimacy and Harmony of Maladjusted Couples in Behbahan, Iran

Background: Dissatisfaction with marital relations and an emotional breach between couples increase the risk of divorce. Objectives: The present study aimed to investigate the effects of emotionally-focused couples therapy on the marital intimacy and harmony of maladjusted couples in Behbahan, Iran. Methods: This quasi-experimental study was conducted with a pretest-posttest design and a control group. The sample population included the maladjusted couples vising the counseling centers in Behbahan in 2020. Via convenience sampling, 30 couples were selected and randomly divided into two groups of experimental and control (n = 15 couples per group). Data were collected using the personal assessment of intimacy in relationships and the Marital Harmony Questionnaire. The experimental group received nine sessions of emotionally-focused couples therapy (90-minute sessions, twice a week), and the control group received no intervention. Data analysis was performed in SPSS version 25. Results: The mean posttest scores of marital intimacy and harmony were 115.63 ± 10.22 and 31.66 ± 2.21 in the experimental group and 91.39 ± 9.04 and 22.93 ± 2.19 in the control group, respectively. A significant difference was observed between the experimental and control groups in terms of marital intimacy and harmony (P < 0.001). In addition, emotionally-focused couples therapy significantly enhanced marital intimacy and harmony in the experimental group. Conclusions: According to the results, emotionally-focused couples therapy could effectively improve the marital indicators of the maladjusted couples (intimacy and harmony).

Associations between Personality Traits, Intolerance of Uncertainty, Coping Strategies, and Stress in Italian Frontline and Non-Frontline HCWs during the COVID-19 Pandemic—A Multi-Group Path-Analysis

The COVID-19 pandemic represented a very difficult physical and psychological challenge for the general population and even more for healthcare workers (HCWs). The main aim of the present study is to test whether there were significant differences between frontline and non-frontline Italian HCWs concerning (a) personality traits, intolerance of uncertainty, coping strategies and perceived stress, and (b) the models of their associations. A total of 682 Italian HCWs completed a self-report questionnaire: 280 employed in COVID-19 wards and 402 in other wards. The analysis of variance omnibus test revealed significant differences between the two groups only for perceived stress, which was higher among the frontline. The multi-group path analysis revealed significant differences in the structure of the associations between the two groups of HCWs, specifically concerning the relations between: personality traits and intolerance of uncertainty; intolerance of uncertainty and coping strategies. Regarding the relation between coping strategies and stress no difference was identified between the two groups. In both of them, emotionally focused coping was negatively related with perceived stress, whereas dysfunctional coping was positively related with stress. These results could be useful in planning actions aiming to reduce stress and improve the effectiveness of HCWs’ interventions. Training programs aimed to provide HCWs with a skillset to tackle uncertain and stressful circumstances could represent an appropriate support to develop a preventive approach during outbreaks.

Commentary—Extending the Boundaries of Systematic Case Study Research: Conceptual and Methodological Issues

In this commentary we discuss the two examples of systematic case study research in this issue: Miller et al., (2021), who continue the development of the quasi-judicial Panels of Psychological Inquiry method by applying it to a child client with an autistic spectrum condition; and Bohart et al. (2021), who apply their research jury approach to a video recorded case of Emotionally-Focused Therapy for couples. We open by briefly summarizing the main issues addressed in our previous commentary (Stephen Elliott, 2011), which involved the same authors; we also note some key developments in systematic case study research over the past ten years. The rest of our commentary is divided into three parts. First, we look at more general conceptual issues in systematic case study research, including situations in which systematic case studies are likely to be most useful; the problem of overly broad research questions; the definition and assessment of outcome; and the thorny issue of causality. In the second part, we turn our attention to methodological issues raised by the two articles, returning to the questions of what counts as evidence in systematic case study research (here the use of observational methods for assessing client change and change processes), but also to the processes by which research judges or jurors make decisions about knowledge claims and methods for generalizing from one case to other cases. In the final main section, we offer more substantive commentary on Miller et al. (2021), from the point of view of autism research. We start by putting the DIR/Floortime intervention in context before raising key diagnostic issues that we think circumscribe the case and spelling out uncertainties about the nature of the intervention used. We round off this section with a set of proposals for future systematic single case research on interventions for autism. We close our commentary with a brief set of recommendations.