Person–group fit, group climate, and outcomes in a sample of incarcerated women participating in trauma recovery groups.

Abstract

The present study sought to apply the concept of person-group (P-G) fit from the domain of organizational psychology to the domain of group psychotherapy. A time-series design was used to examine the relationship between an individual group member's fit with her group, operationalized as congruence and convergence, on perceptions of group climate and her session attendance and change in posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptoms. Fifty-one of 73 incarcerated women, participating in six manualized (trauma recovery and empowerment model [TREM]) therapy groups provided data for analyses. Group members completed measures of group climate at each session and pre-and posttest ratings on the PTSD Symptom Scale-Self Report (PSS-SR). Fit with the group was operationalized as the absolute difference between a group member's score on engagement, avoidance, and conflict, and the average scores on these dimensions for the other group members. Hierarchical linear modeling was used to examine session-level (N = 1,606) fit across time. Results indicated that fit with the group for avoidance decreased (diverged), and conflict increased (converged) across sessions. Increasing fit with the group on perceptions of group conflict was associated with attending more group sessions (commitment), and increasing fit with the group on perceptions of group avoidance was associated with PTSD symptom change (goal accomplishment). Study results highlight that group processes (like fit) should be studied over time and in relation to relevant clinical outcomes.

Sexual Victimization and Mental Illness Prevalence Rates Among Incarcerated Women: A Literature Review

“…Several researchers have implemented and evaluated trauma-focused treatments with incarcerated women (Bradley & Follingstad, 2003; Cole, Sarlund-Heinrich, & Brown, 2007; Ford, Chang, Levine, & Zhang, 2013; Karlsson, Bridges, Bell, & Petretic, 2014; Karlsson, Zielinski, & Bridges, 2015; Kubiak, Kim, Fedock, & Bybee, 2012; Lynch, Heath, Mathews, & Cepeda, 2012; Paquin, Kivlighan, & Drogosz, 2013; Roe-Sepowitz, Bedard, Pate, & Hedberg, 2014; Wolff, Frueh, Shi, & Schumann, 2012; Zlotnick et al, 2009). However, many treatment approaches are limited due to the amount of resources needed for implementation and/or the lack of active trauma–specific components (e.g., imaginal exposure and cognitive restructuring).…”

A Comparative Effectiveness Study of a Shortened Trauma Recovery Empowerment Model and an Attachment-Informed Adaptation

“…However, other studies found no statistically significant improvements in depression (Fallot et al, 2011), PTSD (Fallot et al, 2011), or substance use severity (Amaro, Dai et al, 2007;Morrissey et al, 2005). More recent studies of TREM found statistically significant improvements in anxiety (Karatzias, Ferguson, Gullone, & Cosgrove, 2016) and PTSD (Paquin, Kivlighan, & Drogosz, 2013), but not in depression (Karatzias et al, 2016). Early and more recent TREM studies report high attrition rates and discuss the substantial barriers to treatment completion experienced by survivors of interpersonal trauma (Chouliara et al, 2017;.…”

“…Early and more recent TREM studies report high attrition rates and discuss the substantial barriers to treatment completion experienced by survivors of interpersonal trauma (Chouliara et al, 2017; McHugo, Kammerer, et al, 2005). In addition, recent TREM studies include greater focus on relationships (Cihlar, 2014; Karatzias et al, 2016; Paquin et al, 2013) and recognition that interventions that explicitly target interpersonal difficulties may be needed to enhance outcomes for survivors of interpersonal trauma (Karatzias et al, 2016). Similarly, social support has been identified as a key contributor to healing and resilience following trauma (Afifi & MacMillan, 2011; Burton, Cooper, Feeny, & Zoellner, 2015; Herman, 1997; Pearlman & Courtois, 2005), suggesting that attention to relational needs in group therapy is essential to facilitate positive outcomes.…”

A mathematical framework for the complex system approach to group dynamics: The case of recovery house social integration.

“…Group processes are understood to routinely contain feedback loops, a point emphasized in the complex system perspective (Arrow et al, 2000). Substantive examples include leadership dynamics (Eberly, Johnson, Hernandez, & Avolio, 2013), deviance and social control (Heerdink, van Kleef, Homan, & Fischer, 2013; Pinto, Marques, Levine, & Abrams, 2010), and group therapy (Paquin, Kivlighan, & Drogosz, 2013). …”