Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-4rdpn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T01:18:03.776Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Two Plus One: Confusions in Conceptualization and Methodology A Rejoinder to Day et al.

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 June 2009

Martin Seager
Affiliation:
Essex & Herts Health Services
Romey Jacobson
Affiliation:
Essex & Herts Health Services

Abstract

In a rejoinder to a recent paper in this journal (Day et al., 1993) based on the “Two Plus One Model”, this article attempts to point out a number of important self-contradictions and flaws within the “two plus one” approach. These problems have a bearing on its claims to be a new and efficient way of utilising clinical resources.

Type
Clinical Section
Copyright
Copyright © British Association for Behavioural and Cognitive Psychotherapies 1994

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Barkham, M. and Shapiro, D. (1988). Psychotherapy in 2 sessions: a research protocol. Social and Applied Psychology Unit Memo No. 891, University of Sheffield, Department of Psychology.Google Scholar
Day, A., Maddicks, R. and McMahon, D. (1993). Brief psychotherapy in two-plus-one sessions with a young offender population. Behavioural and Cognitive Psychotherapy 21, 357369.Google Scholar
Howard, K.I., Kopta, S.M., Krause, M.S. and Orlinsky, D.E. (1986). The close-effect relationship in psychotherapy. American Psychologist 41, 159164.Google Scholar
Seager, M. (1991). Waiting lists are not the only problem: changing a referral system. Clinical Psychology Forum 36, 2026.Google Scholar
Seager, M. and Jacobson, R.S. (1991). Tackling waiting lists: beyond a quantitative perspective. Clinical Psychology Forum 35, 2932.Google Scholar
Seager, M. and Jacobson, R.S. (1993). Two plus one: misunderstood or incomprehensible? A reply to Davis et al. Clinical Psychology Forum 52, 1621.Google Scholar
Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.