Pregroup Training

Abstract

Earlier reviews have asserted the superiority of structure versus ambiguity in the practice of group therapy. This review attempts to specify the dimensions that lead to this asserted superiority. The pregroup training literature is reviewed in terms of method and timing of presentation and content of training. A model is proposed that links content and timing with issues in group development Implications for practice and research are noted.The comparative effectiveness of structure versus ambiguity in the practice of group therapy has been a continuing source of debate among mental health professionals. To date, the empirical evidence supports the position that structure in general and pregroup training in particular can have potent effects on group member variables. The practitioner, however, is still left with diverse and often confusing data upon which to make choices; what structure, on which dimensions, delivered in what fashion, by whom, when, and evaluated in what way? The purpose of this article is to review the relevant literature on three of these dimensions of pregroup therapy structured training: (1) the content of the information presented; (2) the methods used to deliver pregroup training; and (3) the timing of the presentation. Suggestions for the practitioner and future research issues also will be presented.

Putting the group in your pocket: Using collective identity to enhance personal and collective self-esteem.

“…Two factors that may be related to the impact of the intervention are the duration of individuals’ membership in the group and their trait self-esteem levels. A number of studies have found that members’ reactions to group therapy depend, in part, on how long they have participated in the group (Bednar & Kaul, 1994; Corazzini & Heppner, 1981; Corazzini, Heppner, & Young, 1980; Fuhriman & Burlingame, 1990; Kivlighan, Corazzini, & McGovern, 1985; Kivlighan, Jauquet, Hardie, Francis, & Hershberger, 1993). Kivlighan, McGovern, and Corazzini (1984), drawing on Tuckman’s (1965)stage theory, demonstrated that matching the content and timing of training interventions is crucial for a successful outcome.…”

Video-tape role induction for psychotherapy: Moving forward.

“…For the purposes of this study, RI will hereafter be used to denote any procedure designed to educate the client about the process of therapy. Most of the research attention has focused generally on “outcome,” which often included a focus on process measures, and has indicated that, overall, RI procedures produce significant positive effects (see Bednar, Weet, Evensen, Lanier and Melnick, 1974; Heitler, 1976; LaTorre, 1977; and Orlinsky & Howard, 1986, for reviews focusing on the effects of preparatory training for individual therapy and Kivlighan, Corazzini, & McGovern, 1985; Mayerson, 1984, for reviews focusing on the effects of preparatory training for group therapy, respectively). Fewer studies (e.g., Garrison, 1978; Warren & Rice, 1972) have been conducted using premature termination as a dependent variable in general outpatient psychotherapy, and have provided mixed results.…”

Integrating group dynamics and cognitive-behavioral groups: A hybrid model.

“…Multiple methods of training, particularly interactive ones (videotapes with discussion, practice sessions, etc. ), are most effective (Kivlighan, Corazzini, & McGovern, 1985). Training procedures usually consist of individual sessions emphasizing the safe and supportive qualities of a group, basic education about group roles and process, the benefits of self-disclosure, interpersonal feedback, here-and-now interactions, therapeutic factors, and realistic prognostic expectations.…”