| Literature DB >> 29962991 |
Diego Rocco1, Massimiliano Pastore1, Alessandro Gennaro2, Sergio Salvatore2, Mauro Cozzolino3, Maristella Scorza4.
Abstract
Objective: The present work aims to detect the role of the rate of speech as a mechanism able to give information on patient's intrapsychic activity and the intersubjective quality of the patient-therapist relationship. Method: Thirty clinical sessions among five patients were sampled and divided into idea units (N = 1276) according to the referential activity method. Each idea unit was rated according to referential activity method and in terms of speech rate (syllables per second) for both patient and therapist. A mixed-effects model was applied in order to detect the relationship between the speech rate of both the patient and the therapist and the features of the patient's verbal production in terms of referential activity scales. A Pearson correlation was applied to evaluate the synchrony between the speech rate of the patient and the therapist.Entities:
Keywords: mixed-effects model; paraverbal; process research; referential activity; speech rate; synchrony
Year: 2018 PMID: 29962991 PMCID: PMC6014027 DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00978
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Psychol ISSN: 1664-1078
DSM V diagnosis, age, job position, kind of psychotherapy, and number of sessions analyzed for each patient.
| 1 | Erectile disorder | 22 | Male | Student | Short term | 3/2005–7/2005 | 6 |
| 2 | Panic disorder without agoraphobia | 20 | Male | Student | Short term | 3/2004–6/2004 | 1 |
| 3 | Borderline personality disorder | 33 | Female | Office clerk | Long term | 3/2007–2/2012 | 5 |
| 4 | Histrionic personality disorder | 46 | Female | Office clerk | Long term | 1/2008–12/2012 | 1 |
| 5 | Schizoid personality disorder | 35 | Male | Manager | Long term | 2/2009–9/2011 | 17 |
Example of the database.
| 1 | 1 | 1 | 4.51 | NA | 1.75 | 6.50 |
| 1 | 1 | 2 | 4.35 | 6.29 | 1.75 | 6.00 |
| 1 | 1 | 3 | 4.69 | 5.74 | 2.37 | 6.00 |
| 1 | 1 | 4 | 4.15 | 5.52 | 1.25 | 5.25 |
| 1 | 1 | 5 | 4.31 | 5.05 | 2.00 | 4.50 |
| 1 | 1 | 6 | 4.46 | 5.40 | 6.37 | 8.37 |
| 1 | 1 | 7 | 4.95 | 6.02 | 4.00 | 5.87 |
| 1 | 1 | 8 | 3.99 | 6.89 | 2.00 | 3.62 |
Therapist's SR is highlighted as LAG + 1.
Figure 1Block diagram describing the procedure of measurements steps to obtain the data.
Descriptive statistics of the five patients.
| 1 | 6 | 24.33 | 12.91 | 5.18 | 1.00 | 5.21 | 1.25 | 2.55 | 1.27 | 4.99 | 1.17 |
| 2 | 1 | 24.00 | 4.70 | 0.42 | 5.73 | 0.70 | 3.19 | 1.24 | 5.19 | 0.82 | |
| 3 | 5 | 28.80 | 8.41 | 5.03 | 0.74 | 5.16 | 1.11 | 2.90 | 1.71 | 4.43 | 1.42 |
| 4 | 1 | 15.00 | 5.05 | 0.36 | 4.50 | 0.42 | 3.57 | 1.09 | 5.89 | 1.02 | |
| 5 | 17 | 23.12 | 5.81 | 3.71 | 0.70 | 5.35 | 1.05 | 3.11 | 1.22 | 4.80 | 1.05 |
SRp, Speech Rate of patients; SRt, Speech Rate of therapist; CONIM, level of sensory imagery expressed in language; CLASP, level of discourse organization.
Fit indices of patients' models.
| m0 | 3 | 1632.69 | |||||
| m1 | CONIM | 4 | 12.73 | 1 | 0.000 | 1626.50 | 135.04 |
| m2 | CONIM+CLASP | 5 | 18.90 | 1 | 0.000 | 1614.13 | 141.77 |
| m3 | CONIM x CLASP | 6 | 0.01 | 1 | 0.936 | 1620.67 | 139.80 |
Df, degrees of freedom; Chisq, chi-squared statistic; p, probability value; BIC, Bayesian information criterion; logBF, logarithm of the Bayes Factor. Patients are the random effect in each model.
Figure 2Effects plot for the predictors in model m2. Gray-colored area represents confidence bands around effects (Fox, 2003).
Value of Pearson correlation for different sessions (to be intended in cardinal numbers) of the considered patients.
| 1 | 0.72 | −0.15 | 0.21 | −0.14 | 0.16 |
| 2 | 0.20 | 0.15 | 0.17 | ||
| 3 | 0.24 | 0.05 | 0.38 | ||
| 4 | 0.13 | 0.40 | 0.11 | ||
| 5 | 0.35 | 0.30 | 0.24 | ||
| 6 | 0.27 | 0.32 | |||
| 7 | 0.16 | ||||
| 8 | −0.12 | ||||
| 9 | 0.85 | ||||
| 10 | 0.13 | ||||
| 11 | 0.43 | ||||
| 12 | 0.28 | ||||
| 13 | 0.31 | ||||
| 14 | 0.17 | ||||
| 15 | 0.21 | ||||
| 16 | 0.40 | ||||
| 17 | 0.52 | ||||
| Mean | 0.32 | −0.15 | 0.22 | −0.14 | 0.28 |
Medium magnitude effect;
Large magnitude effect.
Fit indices from therapist models.
| m0 | 3 | 2026.14 | |||||
| m1 | CONIM | 4 | 4.89 | 1 | 0.27 | 2027.75 | −0.83 |
| m2 | CONIM+CLASP | 5 | 3.52 | 1 | 0.061 | 2030.72 | −0.98 |
| m3 | CONIM x CLASP | 6 | 0.18 | 1 | 0.669 | 2037.03 | −2.59 |
Df, degrees of freedom; Chisq, chi-squared statistic; p, probability value; BIC, Bayesian information criterion; logBF, logarithm of the Bayes Factor.