A significant relationship was identified between the Emotionally Dysregulated-Dysphoric Q-Factor and CPPS-CB ( r= 0.27; P = 0.01), as well as a trend towards significance between this Q-Factor with CPPS-PI ( r= 0.18; P = 0.09).
Emotionally dysregulated-dysphoric q-factor When examining the relationship between the Emotionally Dysregulated-Dysphoric Q- Factor with therapist technique (PI, CB, PI x CB), a positive relationship trending towards significance was identified between the Q-Factor and CPPS-PI ( b= 1.08, SE= 0.65, t= 1.66, P=0.10), and a positive relationship reaching significance was identified between the Q-Factor and CPPSCB ( b=2 .03, SE= 0.74, t= 2.75, P = 0.01).
Additionally, relationships both reaching and approaching significance were found between CPPS item #7 (‘The therapist focuses discussion on the relationship between the therapist and patient’) and both the Borderline Clinical Prototype ( r =0.22; P=0.04) and the Emotionally Dysregulated-Dysphoric QFactor ( r =0.19; P=0.07).
Lastly, a negative trend towards significance was identified between CPPS item #16 (‘The therapist allows the patient to initiate the discussion of significant issues, events, and experiences’) and the Emotionally Dysregulated-Dysphoric Q-Factor ( r =-0.18; P=0.09).
Of note, while the researchers used a different psychotherapy process scale (Psychotherapy Process Q-Set; PQS; Jones, 2000), they found that the most characteristic psychotherapy process items within the sample included the following: ‘Patient brings up significant issues and material’ (similar to CPPS-PI item #16, which approached significance for the Emotionally Dysregulated-Dysphoric Q-factor); ‘Therapist communicates with patient in a clear, coherent style’ (similar to CPPS-CB item #20, which reached significance for both variables); and ‘Patient experiences discomforting or painful affect’ (similar to CPPS-PI item #1, which reached significance for both variables).