A COLLABORATIVE EVALUATION APPROACH TO PSYCHOTHERAPY
1 2
*MichaelE.Mitchell,MichelleRincones-Rodríguez1UniversityofSouthFlorida(*CorrespondingAuthor)
2UniversityofFlorida
ABSTRACT
TheModelforCollaborativeEvaluations(MCE)waspartoftheinitialeffortstoexaminewhetherpersonalcharacteristicsareassociatedwithamulti-pillar,base22numbered scale. The MCE capitalizes on the strengths of various key stakeholders who provide a baseline for formative and summative decision-making. The evaluationusedaquestionnaireandsemi-structuredinterviewstocollectdatafromcommunitymembers.PsychotherapyBase22offersacompassinthesearchforthe paththatleadstopsychologicalbalance.Itprovidesseveraladvantageslikegainingspecificinsightforpsychologiststouseasatooltoprovideindividualizedtherapy Humansarenotdefinedbyasinglenumber,butbyaninterrelationofallthepillarsintheconstruct.InPsychotherapyBase22,therearenogoodorbad,positive,or negative numbers, just harmony or disharmony with numbers, which may lead to trends that guide us in the search for personal balance. Implications of this collaborative evaluation results are highlighted, including specific stakeholders' perceptions, along with ways of using Psychotherapy Base 22 with other stakeholders.Theevaluationapproachhastwoconceptuallyrelatedsegments,aformativepartoftheevaluationandasummativeportion. Theformativepartofthe evaluationprovidedimmediatefeedbacktotheevaluandwhothenprovidedbrainbasedreasonsfortheearlyresults,whichcatalyzedthoughtsofanalysisrefinement. Thesummativeevaluationprovidedanendingthatcouldbefurtherusedasthebasisforpost-projectwork.TheMCEhassixcomponentsthatguidedtheevaluationin anefficientandeffectivemanner Thesecomponentsareappliedinarecursiveanditerativemanner
KEYWORDS:ModelforCollaborativeEvaluations,Psychotherapy
ACOLLABORATIVEEVALUATIONAPPROACHTOPSYCHOTHERAPY:
Thiscollaborativeevaluationwasconductedasanaidtopsychologistsandprofessionals from related fields using Psychotherapy Base 22 to study personal characteristics. Thistypeofpsychotherapyattemptstoprovideacompassinthe searchtowardsfindingasenseofequilibriumthroughamoreaccuratesenseof self-knowledge(Mitchell,Rincones-Rodríguez,Walker-Egea,2021).Througha collaborativeevaluation,keystakeholdersareprovidedthepowertovoicetheir opinions and make recommendations for improvement (Rodríguez-Campos, Mitchell,Rincones-Gómez,2020).The purpose of this articleis to show how a collaborativeevaluationwasconductedtoinvestigatetherelationshipbetween PsychotherapyBase22andpersonalcharacteristicsofrespondents.Specifically, weexaminethekeycharacteristicsofthistypeofpsychotherapywithanemphasisonmeaningofeachnumber Humanbeingsarenotdefinedbyasinglenumber,buttheinterrelationofallthepillarsandnumbers. Therefore,allthecharacteristics linked together show our personality As explained by López Cano (2020),inPsychotherapyBase22therearenogoodorbad,positiveornegative numbers, just harmony or disharmony with specific numbers, and this leads to trendsthatguidethesearchforpersonalbalance.Forinstance,ifyournumbers are in disharmony, you will live in continuous stress without being able to achieveyourhighestpotential.TheModelforCollaborativeEvaluation(MCE) providesacomprehensiveframeworktoexaminepersonalitytraitsinacollaborativeenvironment.Inclearandsimplelanguage,weoutlinekeyconceptsabout Psychotherapy Base 22 and blend theoretical grounding with its application throughacollaborativeevaluation.
PsychotherapyBase22:
AccordingtoLópezCano(2020),amulti-pillar,base22-numberedscaleshows aninstructionbookofwhatindividualshaveintheirunconsciousandprovidesa compass in the search for the path to balance (see Figure 1). It offers several advantages,suchasagreaterunderstandingofrelationships,andatooltofindthe appropriatetherapyleadingtoabetterversionofus(e.g.,reducingstress).This multi-pillarisassociatedwithaspecificgroupofstrengthsandweaknessesand intertwinedknots.Thereisaneedtocreatestandardizedtoolsandresourcesto assist decision-making practices within this scale Thus, a collaborative approachusingtheModelforCollaborativeEvaluations(MCE)wasusedinthis evaluation. Results of this effort provide additional considerations for PsychotherapyBase22.
ThesourceofinformationfromPsychotherapyBase22hasseveralsources,for example, Kris Hadar, Solomón Sellam, and Manuel López Cano, who focused on knowing the psychological, behavioral, and evolutionary characteristics of people,addingtoitatherapeuticapproach(LópezCano,2020).
ArithmeticPrinciples:
PsychotherapyBase22isbasedonthefirst22numbers;therefore,theuppernumbershavetobereducedtoanumberbetween1and22.Ifthefirstreductionfrom thesumofthenumbersdoesnotcometobebetweenthenumber1and22,itwill
benecessarytodoanother Forexample:37=3+7=10.However,1898=26as itisgreaterthan22thenitisreduceduntilitisbetween1and22.Thereductionis: 2+6=8.
TheMirror:
AccordingtoLópezCano(2020),themirrorreflectstheimageofapersoninall itsaspects:Physical,social,psychological,andpsychic.Themirrorshowsasummaryoftheblockagesorcontradictionsthateveryonefacesintheirlivestointegrateandaccepttheirreality Ifthestresstolerancelevelisexceeded,itispossibletofallintothemaskthatistheoppositetothemirror Itistheplaceofdefense thatservesasanincentivetohandletheproperenergyandflowbackintothemirror(seeFigure2).
For example, Number 11 individuals have determination, ability for resolution andcourage,achievetheirproposedobjectives,andbecomegreatbosses.Iftheir masculine side can't find a way to properly manage their energy, they will become verbally violent, while a well-balanced feminine side functions as an energeticchannelsuitableforcreation.Someprinciplesare:Energy,autonomy, self-confidence,andleadership.Somestrengthsare: Resolute,greatleader,and veryintuitive.Someweaknessesare:Impatient,irritable,angry,andhypersensitive.
TheMask:
According to López Cano (2020), the mask is the one that shapes our way of being For instance, it comprises all these personal, intimate, and nontransferable premises that make us flow naturally In addition, it is everything thatisimposedonusbyrules,laws,environment,customs,andeventsthatpreventusfromflowingandleadustoexperiencesituationsthatimpingeonus(see Figure3).
Whensomethingoutoftheordinaryoccurs,thereisadistancingthatcausesthe appearanceofdefensereaction,creatingthemasktoprotectourselvesfromdifficulties.Itconstitutesaprotectionsystem,anescapevalvethatisnotsomething negative,butonthecontrary,itisnecessarytoevolve. Whenthemirrorpillars begintosinkbecausetheirenergyisblocked,thenindividualsinstinctivelyplace themselvesinadefensivepositionandbegintofallintothemask,althoughitis not an immediate process as there are other ones before it (e.g., pillar of resistance,emergencypillar)toavoidlong-termleadingtofallintoillness.
Forexample,Number2areverysensitive,conciliatoryandintuitivepeople,with great emotional wisdom, and tend towards introversion. Some principles are: Intuition,observation,emotion,andsecret.Somestrengthsare:Reserved,conciliatory, brooding. Weaknesses: Occultist; introverted; hypocritical; dependent.
CollaborativeEvaluationApproach: Severalcollaborativemethodologiesexist(Fettermanetal.2014),andeachhas advantages. In this article, we use the MCE because it can provide additional
resources for capitalizing on the expertise of those involved in the evaluation. TheMCEisaframeworkforguidingcollaborativeevaluationsinaprecise,realistic,andusefulmanner(Rodríguez-CamposandRincones-Gómez2013). The modelrevolvesaroundasetofsixinteractivecomponentsspecifictoconducting acollaborativeevaluationtoestablishprioritiesandachieveasupportiveevaluation environment (e g , Rodríguez-Campos 2015; Rodríguez-Campos and Rincones-Gómez2018).
ThefollowingaretheMCEcomponents:a)identifythesituation,b)clarifythe expectations,c)establishacollectivecommitment,d)ensureopencommunication,e)encourageeffectivepractices,andf)followspecificguidelines(seeFigure 4).Within an MCE approach, evaluators retain control while collaborating withstakeholders.Thisarrangementhelpssafeguardthecredibilityofevaluation products, while integrating collaboration into the design (Hicks, RodríguezCampos,andHoon2018).
Each of the MCE subcomponents, shown as bullet points, includes a set of ten stepssuggestedtosupporttheproperunderstandinganduseofthemodel.Consequently,checklistscancontributetotheimprovementofvalidity,reliability,and credibility of an evaluation. The MCE emphasizes the involvement of stakeholders,inthiscase,psychologicalexperts,therebyincreasingthechancesthat evaluationrecommendationswillbeutilized
Collaborativeevaluationhasspecialstrengths.Itcreatesanenvironmentwhich fosters the a collective commitment toward established goals. The evaluation findings were used to reveal lessons learned and share findings with the key stakeholders (Fetterman, Rodríguez-Campos, and Zukowski 2018). Through thiscollaborativeeffort,stakeholderinputwasavehicletocreativesolutionsthat weremorelikelytohavebeenproducedandused,comparedtoanexternalevaluatorwouldhaveaccomplishedinisolation.
METHODOLOGY:
Methodologicalapproachesareincludedbelowtoillustratethemodel’semphasis on systematic stakeholder involvement throughout the evaluation process. Therehasbeenacknowledgementparticularlyinthefieldofpsychology,butalso inevaluationoftheneedtodecolonialize.Colonizationreferstohowasocietal hierarchystillexistsinpost-colonialtimeswheretheminoritymaintainsstructuralpoweroverminorities(Quijano,2007).Awaytodecolonizeistostrivefor socialjusticeandensureallstakeholdersandthosewhomaybeaffectedbyaprogram(particularlythemarginalizedandoppressedareappropriatelylistenedto andaddressed(Kessietal.,2021).
TheapproachusingtheMCE’sIdentifystakeholderscomponentoftheIdentify the situation depended upon clearly defining who the appropriate stakeholders were, including considering any possible unintended consequences because of theprogramevaluationresults.
BecausetheevaluationusingtheMCEstrategiespurposefullysearchedforthese stakeholders, it strongly promoted decolonization. It is one of the strengths of theMCEinparticular,andstakeholderinvolvementapproacheslikeempowermentandparticipatoryevaluationapproachesingeneral(Fettermanetal.,2014) Therearemultiplewaysofknowingandnooneknowsitall,soatthebeginning of the evaluation, the stakeholders; and critical stakeholder members; (also knownasCMs)ideaswerewelcomedandtogetherallthepossiblewaystosolve the evaluation were considered and a consensus was attained resulting in high qualitydecisions.
Forexample,theevaluatorsbecamekeenlyawareoftheorganization’sculture andhistory,andthathelpedusselectthemostappropriatemethodsofdatacollection, plan their implementation, discuss strategies, and provide feedback for improvementduringtheformativeaspectoftheevaluation.Thistypeofinvolvementwasconsideredessentialforestablishingownership,buildingcommitment intheprocesswhichwaspartoftheEstablishacollectivecommitmentcomponent of the MCE (Rodríguez-Campos, 2005; Rodríguez-Campos & RinconesGómez,2013).
The approach using the MCE emphasized systemic and strategic stakeholder involvementallthroughtheevaluationprocess.Thequalityofdecisionsmade, particularlyduringtheformativephaseoftheevaluationdepended,onclearcommunicationwithCMswhichalloweddiverseapproachestoachievetheevaluation’s goals. Being knowledgeable of the development of the Psychotherapy Base 22 and showing sensitivity to the culture of the psychotherapists helped selecttheappropriatemethodsofdatacollection,implementationstrategies,and processes for ongoing assessment of project and evaluation quality This was especiallyimportantbecausetheresearcherswerefromSpainandtheevaluators werefromtheUnitedStates.
Acollaborativeapproachtodatacollectionandanalysisandre-analysiswasused inthisevaluationeffort.Quantitativedataanalyseswereconductedusingthestatistical package R. The initial pooled data were tested for normal distributions and homogeneous variance assumptions.Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was conducted for each of the variables comparing response scores for all data and then by age group. The young group was defined as those under 20 years old (N=33), mid-age group were those 21-38 years old (N=33) and old-age group
werethosegreaterthan38yearsold(N=36).
Weacknowledgeattheoutsetthatnon-probabilitysampleshavelimitationsasto theconclusionsandinferencesthatmaybemadefromthedata(Buelensetal., 2018;Spiegelhalter,2014),butitservedasagoodstartingpointforestablishinga baselineofdata.
RESULTS: DemographicProfileofRespondents:
Asthiswasthepreliminarystageoftheevaluation,agoalwastoobtainadiverse sampleofpeoplewhocomefromdifferentbackgrounds,birthcountries,andage groups.The102participantsrangedfrom12yearsoldto88.Therewasagreat diversityofculturesincludedinthisstudythatincludedfourdifferentcontinents. AreasincludedNorth,Central,andSouthAmerica,Europe,India,andAsiaFigure5.
DataAnalysis:
Initial results showed no statistically significant relationships among the variablesandprinciples,strengths,weaknesses,orknots(Table1).Evaluatorsknow that sometimes unexpected results are encountered. By following MCE protocols, we had developed a great deal of trust, and we were honest about the initiallydisappointingresultsasweavoidedpanderingourevaluation–whereevaluatorsmayreporttotheclienttheresultstheywanttohearwithagoalofgaining theclient’sfavor(Stufflebeam&Shinkfield,2007).
ThistrustwasdevelopedasweadheredtotheFollowthecollaborationguiding principlesaspectoftheFollowspecificguidelinescomponentoftheMCE.We explained how there may be some challenges of any survey including the fact thatthepeoplemayfeelmorecomfortableidentifyingtheirmostimportantprinciplesandstrengthandthatpeopletendtominimizetheirweaknesses.Thisparticipant response bias is known as social desirability bias (Nunnally, 1978; Pedhazur&Pedhazur-Schmelkin,1991).
Once these initial data were analyzed and no statistically significant relationshipswerefound,weusedtheEnsureimmediatefeedbacksubcomponentofthe model and gathered qualitative data from the developers of the survey We reportedtheformativefindingstotheprogramdirectorwhichspurredthoughts of how younger people may respond differently to the personality questions becausetheirbrainshavenotfullyformedtheconnections(Blakemore,2012).
Basedonthatfeedback,weanalyzedthedatabyagegroupanddiscoveredsome significantdifferencesintheresponsescoresofthreeofthevariables,depending on the age group (Figures 6-8).There was a significant difference between old andyoungagegroups(Figure6).
ThesecondvariabletoshowdifferencesamongtheagegroupswastheKnotof Resistance. Inthesecomparisons,theoldgroupwassignificantlydifferentthan midandyoungagegroups(Figure3).
The remaining variable that showed a significant difference in age groups was DeepPersonality(Figure8).Inthiscase,itwastheyoungestagegroupthatwas statisticallydifferentfromtheotheragegroups.
As the focus of this paper was to demonstrate how a stakeholder participation approachwasusedtoevaluatetheinvestigationoftherelationshipbetweenPsychotherapyBase22andpersonalcharacteristicsofrespondents.Theevaluation resultswereusedtoreflectuponlessonslearnedfromafirst-cutanalysisandto sharefindingswiththekeystakeholders.Theresultwasarefineddataanalysis andideasforfutureresearch.Inpresentingtheinitialresultsoftheevaluationto thevariousstakeholders,thedynamicroleofcollaborationwasemphasized.
Throughoutthiscollaborativeeffort,theCMsreflectedonwhattheycollectively learnedandaffirmedtheircommitmenttoevaluationanditsresults.Somepositive characteristics of this collaborative evaluation included improved stakeholdercredibilityoftheevaluationbecauseofshareddecision-making,creative problemsolving,andgreaterlikelihoodoftheevaluationfindingsbeingused.
CONCLUSION:
ThisevaluationexaminedtherelationshipsbetweensurveyrespondentsandPsychotherapy Base-22 perceptions.The results of the data analysis indicated that therearedifferencesinhowtheparticipantsrespondedtothesurveyitemsbased ontheiragegroup.Thiscouldbeattributedtodifferencesinbraindevelopment, particularlyfortheyoungagegroup.
Furtherresearchwouldincludeconductingmultivariateanalysisandlongitudinalstudies.Theremaybeothercontributingfactorsthataffectsurveyresponses suchaslifeexperiences.Longitudinalresearchwouldallowustoseewhetherthe responsesremainstableovertime.
TheevaluationwasconductedinanefficientmannerbycapitalizingonthevariousaspectsoftheModelforCollaborativeEvaluations. Thesituationwasidentifiedwhichincludedkeystakeholderswhowerewillingtoworkcollaboratively in the evaluation because they were part of the decision-making process, and theiropinionswerevalued.Becausethestakeholdershadinputintohowtheeval-
uationprocessworked,acollectivecommitmentwasestablishedasallworkedto successfullybringtheevaluationtofruition.
TheMCEguidedustoattendtotheintendedandunintendedeffectsofthecollaborative relationships (Rodríguez-Campos, Martz and Rincones-Gómez 2010) andkeptuscognizantofhowthingscanchangeduringtheevaluationprocess.
Efficienciesintheevaluationwerecreatedastheexpectationswereclearlylaid outoncethesituationwasidentifiedandweencouragedappreciationforindividualdifferencesincultureandbackgrounds.Openandcontinuouseffectivecommunicationservedtobuildtrustamongtheevaluatorsandthestakeholders.
TheuseoftheMCEprovidedanincreasedbreadthofknowledgeastheevaluatorsandCMshadspecificskillsetsthatcontributedpositivelytotheevaluation. BecausetheevaluationteamhadmembersthatspokeSpanishandknewthecustoms of Spaniards, we were able to effectively communicate and clarify any translation issues. The evaluators were able to contribute various skills to the evaluation. This included the knowledge of conducting an efficient evaluation using the MCE, knowledge of research design, instrument (survey) development,andstatisticalanalysis.
Based on the evaluation findings and previous experiences, Additionally, this modelhelpeduserstounderstandandaccountforthenatureofevaluationwork andbeingculturallysensitivetothefullrangeofstakeholdersinthecollaborative evaluation process Rodríguez-Campos, Martz and Rincones-Gómez 2010). Lastly, the MCE provided an increased shared ownership that also led to an increasedqualityofinformationfordecisionmakingandreceptivityofthefindings.
REFERENCES:
I. Fetterman,David,LilianaRodríguez-Campos,andAnneZukowski.2018.Collaborative, Participatory, and Empowerment Evaluation: Stakeholder Involvement Approaches.NewYork:GuilfordPublications.
II. Fetterman, David, Liliana Rodríguez-Campos, Abraham Wandersman, and Rita O’Sullivan. 2014. “Collaborative, Participatory and Empowerment Evaluation: BuildingaStrongConceptualFoundationforStakeholderInvolvementApproaches to Evaluation.” American Journal of Evaluation 35 (1): 144–148. https://doi.org/ 10.1177/1098214013509875.
III. López-Cano, M. 2020. Numerological Psychotherapy in Base 22 [La Psicoterapia NumerológicainBase22].Madrid,Spain:AunarTerapias.
IV Mitchell, M., Rincones-Rodríguez, M., & Walker-Egea, C. (2021, November). Numerology in base 22 and personal characteristics. Paper presented at the 35th annualconferenceoftheAmericanEvaluationAssociation(AEA).Virtual,USA.
V Rodríguez-Campos,L.,Mitchell,M.&Rincones-Gómez,R.2020.AModelforCollaborativeEvaluationsasaframeworktofosteracommunityofcollaborators.New DirectionsforEvaluation,165,17-27.
VI. Rodríguez-Campos, Liliana. 2015. Collaborative Evaluations in Practice: Insights fromBusiness,Nonprofit,andEducationSectors.Scottsdale,AZ:InformationAge Publishing.
VII. Rodríguez-Campos, Liliana, and Rigoberto Rincones-Gómez. 2013. Collaborative Evaluations:Step-by-step,2nded.Stanford,CA:StanfordUniversityPress.
VIII. Blakemore, S -J (2012) Imaging brain development: The adolescent brain NeuroImage (Orlando, Fla ), 61(2), 397-406 https://doi org/10 1016/j neuroimage.2011.11.080
IX. Buelens,B.,Burger,J.,&vandenBrakel,J.A.(2018).ComparingInferenceMethods for Non-probability Samples. International statistical review, 86(2), 322-343. https://doi.org/10.1111/insr.12253
X. Fetterman, D. M., Rodríguez-Campos, L., Wandersman, A., & O’Sullivan, R. G. (2014). Collaborative, Participatory, and Empowerment Evaluation: Building a StrongConceptualFoundationforStakeholderInvolvementApproachestoEvaluation(AResponsetoCousins,Whitmore,andShulha,2013).TheAmericanjournalof evaluation,35(1),144-148.https://doi.org/10.1177/1098214013509875
XI. Kessi,S.,Suffla,S.,&Seedat,M.(2021).DecolonialEnactmentsinCommunityPsychology SpringerInternationalPublishingAG.
XII. Nunnally, J C (1978) Psychometric theory (2d ed ed ) McGraw-Hill http://ezproxy.lib.usf.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct =true&db=cat00847a&AN=usflc.022015033&site=eds-live
XIII. Pedhazur,E.J.,&Pedhazur-Schmelkin,L.(1991).Measurement,design,andanalysis:Anintegratedapproach.LawrenceErlbaumAssociates.
XIV Quijano,A.(2007).Colonialityandmodernity/rationality Culturalstudies(London, England),21(2-3),168-178.https://doi.org/10.1080/09502380601164353
XV Rodríguez-Campos,L.(2005).Collaborativeevaluations:Astep-by-stepmodelfor theevaluator LluminaPress.
XVI. Rodríguez-Campos, L., & Rincones-Gómez, R. (2013). Collaborative evaluations: Stepbystep.StanfordUniversityPress.
XVII. Spiegelhalter,D.J.(2014).Thefutureliesinuncertainty Science(AmericanAssociation for the Advancement of Science), 345(6194), 264-265 https://doi org/ 10.1126/science.1251122
XVIII.Stufflebeam,D.L.,&Shinkfield,A.J.(2007).EvaluationTheory,Models,&Applications.Jossey-Bass.
: 2454-9916 |
TABLESANDFIGURES:
Table1:Initialresultsofpooledsurveydata
Characteristic
Strengthsandweaknesses
PersonalityorGroup Result
PersonalityPrinciple NS
Deeppersonalitycalculatedfrom birthdate PersonalityPrinciple NS
DeepPersonalitycalculatedfrom birthdate
DeepPersonalitycalculatedfrom birthdate
Groupofstrengths NS
Groupofweaknesses NS
Resistanceknotcalculatedfrombirthdate Groupofweaknesses NS
Note:NS=notsignificant
Figure1:ExampleofPsychotherapyBase22Chart
Figure2:ExampleofaMirrorChart
Figure3:ExampleofaMaskChart
Source:Rodríguez-Campos&Rincones-Gómez2013
Figure4: TheModelforCollaborativeEvaluations
