Content area
Full text
There is efficacy evidence for dialectical behavior therapy (DBT) and positive psychology interventions. However, there is minimal research examining positive psychology constructs alongside psychopathology measures in clinical populations. Accordingly, this study examined these associations in a DBT intensive outpatient program (IOP). Participants included 39 adults enrolled in a DBT IOP who completed measures of depression, anxiety, stress, emotion regulation, hope, and self-compassion. Results indicated hope and self-compassion were higher in graduates than in dropouts and were negatively associated with psychopathology measures. The relationship between depression and graduation status reached practical significance but not statistical significance. Two self-compassion subscales, mindfulness and common humanity, were significantly related to the number of sessions attended in this brief program. These findings indicate positive psychology measures possess utility within clinical populations. To accurately assess treatment success, counselors should consider measuring both the pathological and the positive.
Dialectical behavior therapy (DBT) and positive psychology interventions both have strong efficacy evidence (Bolier et al., 2013; Panos et al., 2014). Although DBT has significant efficacy evidence with individuals with a variety of clinical diagnoses, much of the efficacy literature focuses on individuals with significant clinical symptomology (Warlick et al., 2018). The goal in DBT is to advance clients towards "life worth living" (Linehan, 1993, p. 129). However, most DBT research focuses on the early stages of DBT (e.g., Stage 1, which targets life-threatening behaviors) rather than the advanced stages (e.g., Stages 3 and 4, which target improving happiness and joy; Lynch et al., 2007). Inadvertently, this focuses the clinical and research lens toward negative psychology constructs in acute individuals.
In contrast to the DBT literature, positive psychology efficacy research focuses largely on university and community populations, inadvertently neglecting clinical populations (Warlick et al., 2018). Incorporating positive psychology constructs into clinical care may provide a deeper, more balanced lens on clients (Owens et al., 2015). Moreover, Don Clifton called for researchers to study "what is right" with individuals (as cited in Lopez et al, 2005, p. 3), and positive psychology has the potential to emphasize "what is right" with clinical populations, who are often maligned. Maintaining a framework of positive psychology may also promote social justice with this underprivileged population by allowing space to account for their strengths. Thus, this pilot study sought...