Premium
Thematic Mapping Maps Much Territory But Needs Stronger Evidence‐based Coordinates: A Commentary
Author(s) -
Eells Tracy D.
Publication year - 2017
Publication title -
journal of clinical psychology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.124
H-Index - 119
eISSN - 1097-4679
pISSN - 0021-9762
DOI - 10.1002/jclp.22433
Subject(s) - conceptualization , debiasing , psychology , context (archaeology) , thematic analysis , dysfunctional family , plan (archaeology) , deductive reasoning , field (mathematics) , epistemology , cognitive psychology , social psychology , applied psychology , psychotherapist , qualitative research , computer science , sociology , artificial intelligence , social science , paleontology , history , philosophy , mathematics , archaeology , pure mathematics , biology
Thematic mapping (TM) is a transtheoretical, transdiagnostic, pattern‐focused method of case formulation. It involves systematically gathering a broad range relevant client information, collecting representative behavioral episodes, using inductive and deductive reasoning to identify themes and subthemes that characterize a client's dysfunctional patterns, and then developing a treatment plan to address them. The TM method includes debiasing steps to minimize clinician judgment errors and addresses a client's cultural context. TM was developed in response to several "case misconceptualizations" that the authors contend have created a crisis in the field of case conceptualization. This commentary critiques the case misconceptualizations and the TM method is evaluated. Acknowledging multiple innovations of TM, the commentary recommends a stronger evidence‐based focus, and discusses the benefits of theory‐guided case formulation, reasons to consider diagnosis in case formulation, and research as a means to resolve case misconceptualizations.