The Cognitive Bahavioral Therapy (CBT) has grown and developed in many different directions as it has been adapted to different populations, to an ever-increasing range of problems and to new forms of delivery. It gives the appearance of a unitary therapy, but CBT is better seen as an increasingly diverse set of problem speciﬁc interventions.
Le componenti che caratterizzano l’approccio menzionato sono molteplici e in questa sede verranno analizzate utilizzando il modello di Anthony D. Roth and Stephen Pilling. Tale scelta viene motivata dal fatto che esso describes an evidence-based method for identifying competences, and presents a competence model for cognitive and behavioural therapy.
A competence is a standardised requirement for an individual to properly perform a specific job. Roth and Pilling (2007) identified five specific domains of competence (generic competences, basic cognitive and behavioural therapy competences, specific cognitive and behavioural therapy techniques, problem-specific competences and metacompetences). Le competenze generiche vengono utilizzate in tutti gli approcci terapeutici mentre quelle menzionate nei restanti quattro domini sono proprie della terapia cognitiva comportamentale.
The Roth and Pilling framework was the result of a project commissioned by the Improving Access to Psychological Therapies (IAPT) programme.
The Improving Access to Psychological Therapies (IAPT) programme focuses on delivering psychological therapy for adults with common mental health problems, with a particular emphasis on depression and anxiety disorders. While there is no intent to exclude other therapies, CBT would usually be the preferred mode of treatment, because CBT has the most substantial evidence base s...
... middle of paper ...
...ibed as “the cornerstone of cognitive therapy” (Padesky, 1993), refers to therapists’ use of questions to help clients broaden their perspective and consider a wider range of alternatives to their original view of an event or situation.
The empirical evaluation of Socratic approaches in CBT have been described as ‘‘non-existent’’ (p. 201, Hoffart et al. 2002).
Publications describing the conduct and evaluation of a number of efﬁcacious CBT interventions make no explicit mention of utilizing the Socratic Method within these treatments (e.g., Clark et al. 1994, 2003) making the role and importance of the Socratic Method in such interventions unclear.
Further questions are raised regarding the role of the Socratic Method when considering guided-self-help and Technology-assisted CBT which have efﬁcacy in the treatment of anxiety and depression (Andrews et al. 2010).