This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit an eLetter
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Related articles in BJP
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via CrossRef
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by LANMAN, M.
Right arrow Articles by EVANS, C.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by LANMAN, M.
Right arrow Articles by EVANS, C.
The British Journal of Psychiatry (2003) 182: 255-260
© 2003 The Royal College of Psychiatrists

Objectivity in psychoanalytic assessment of couple relationships{dagger}

M. LANMAN, TQAP, MSPMP and F. GRIER, MBPAS, MSPMP

Tavistock Marital Studies Institute, London

C. EVANS, MRCPsych

Tavistock and Portman NHS Trust and Rampton Hospital, London

Correspondence: M. Lanman, Tavistock Marital Studies Institute, Tavistock Centre, 120 Belsize Lane, London NW3 5BA, UK. Tel +44 (0)20 7447 3724; e-mail: monica{at}tmsi.org.uk

Declaration of interest The study was funded by the Lord Chancellor's Department.

{dagger} See editorial, pp. 193–195, this issue.

Background Clinicians claim that partners in a couple can be understood to share a mode of relating, at an unconscious level. Assessment of this depends on inference from observable data. This study tests the viability and reliability of a modification of the Personal Relatedness Profile (PRP) for this purpose.

Aims To test the interrater reliability and construct validity of a joint PRP score for couples.

Method Seven therapists independently rated couples' interactions using the 30-item PRP and segments of videotaped interviews with 19 couples.

Results Interrater reliability was good and correlations between items clearly supported the underlying Kleinian bipolar model used (paranoid—schizoid/ depressive positions).

Conclusions Psychoanalytic couple psychotherapists agree in independent judgements of the nature of couple functioning, these judgements being based on envisaging couples in terms of an unconsciously shared state of mind.


Related articles in BJP:

Highlights of this issue
SUKHI SHERGILL
BJP 2003 182: 185-a11. [Full Text]  

Between ourselves: psychodynamics and the interpersonal domain
R. PETER HOBSON
BJP 2003 182: 193-195. [Full Text]  



This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Br. J. PsychiatryHome page
T. Calton, F. Grier, M. Lanman, and C. Evans
Personality in psychiatry: what thin partitions? * Authors' reply
The British Journal of Psychiatry, February 2, 2004; 184(2): 183 - 184.
[Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Br. J. PsychiatryHome page
R. P. HOBSON
Between ourselves: psychodynamics and the interpersonal domain
The British Journal of Psychiatry, March 1, 2003; 182(3): 193 - 195.
[Full Text] [PDF]