Luis A. CENTENO-GÁNDARA1*, Adriana MORALES-MARTÍNEZ 1
luis.centenogn@uanl.edu.mx
1 Department of Psychiatry, Facultad de Medicina y Hospital Universitario Dr. José Eleuterio González, Universidad Autónoma de Nuevo León
Abstract
Objective: To clarify the state-of-the-art criteria for defining predictors, to propose how the term predictor and related ones should be interpreted in Kivity et al.’s research, to determine which study’s conclusions should be ignored and which should be considered for clinical practice or research purposes, and to recommend future directions in the research of predictors in psychotherapy for borderline personality disorder. Method: To propose how the term predictor and related ones should be interpreted in Kivity et al.’s research, we shall follow the modern MacArthur approach for defining predictors. Results: It is impossible to determine if the variable “adherence to the TFP prototype at Timepoint 2” occurs before change in reflectivefunctioning and thus, it is impossible to determine if it should be interpreted as an intervening predictor or merely as an outcome; therefore, the study’s conclusions regarding this variable as a predictor should be ignored for future research purposes. Although “lower pre-treatment reflective-functioning” fulfills the defining criteria of a moderator, owing to the lack of evidence of its clinical significance, it should be ignored for clinical practice.
Conclusions: No strong inferences about predictors in TFP with clinical or research relevance can be drawn from the study.
Keywords: Mediators; Moderators; Randomized Controlled Trials; Reflective-Functioning; Transference-Focused Psychotherapy
DOI: 10.24193/jebp.2020.1.3
Published online: 2020/03/01
Published print: 2020/03/01
