J Couns Psychol. 2023 Oct;70(5):534. doi: 10.1037/cou0000699.
Reports the retraction of "Secrets in psychotherapy: For better or worse" by Ellen C. Marks, Clara E. Hill and Dennis M. Kivlighan Jr. (, 2019[Jan], Vol 66[1], 70-82). The following article is being retracted (https://doi.org/10.1037/cou0000311). This retraction is at the request of coauthors Kivlighan and Hill after the results of an investigation by the University of Maryland Institutional Review Board (IRB). The IRB found that the study included data from between one and four therapy clients of the Maryland Psychotherapy Clinic and Research Laboratory (MPCRL) who either had not been asked to provide consent or had withdrawn consent for their data to be included in the research. Marks was not responsible for obtaining and verifying participant consent but agreed to the retraction of this article. (The following abstract of the original article appeared in record 2018-49842-001.) We investigated how concealment and disclosure of secrets, two related but distinct processes, unfolded over the course of open-ended therapy for 39 clients and 9 therapists, using hierarchical linear modeling to identify longitudinal patterns and investigate relationships with working alliance and session quality. Results indicated that over the course of therapy, 85% of clients disclosed at least one secret and 41% concealed at least one secret, with 18% of sessions including a disclosure and 4% of sessions including concealment. Over time, clients were less likely to disclose secrets, and the secrets they chose to conceal were rated as less significant. Clients rated the working alliance lower after sessions when they disclosed secrets versus when they did not disclose, although the working alliance was not rated as poorly when the disclosed secrets were viewed as significant. Clients rated session quality higher after sessions when they disclosed secrets versus when they did not disclose, particularly when they disclosed preoccupying secrets. Clients tended to feel neutral or positive about their disclosures. Implications for practice and research are discussed. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).
撤回 Ellen C. Marks、Clara E. Hill 和 Dennis M. Kivlighan Jr. 的文章“心理治疗中的秘密：好或坏”（，2019[1 月]，第 66 卷[1]，70-82）。以下文章正在被撤回（https://doi.org/10.1037/cou0000311）。这一撤回是马里兰大学机构审查委员会（IRB）调查后，共同作者 Kivlighan 和 Hill 的要求。IRB 发现，该研究包括马里兰心理治疗诊所和研究实验室（MPCRL）的一到四名治疗客户的数据，这些客户要么没有被要求提供同意，要么已经撤回了同意将他们的数据纳入研究的同意。Marks 没有负责获取和验证参与者的同意，但同意撤回这篇文章。（以下是原始文章摘要，出现在记录 2018-49842-001 中。）我们使用分层线性建模来识别纵向模式，并研究与工作联盟和会话质量的关系，调查了 39 名客户和 9 名治疗师的开放式治疗过程中两个相关但不同的过程——秘密的隐瞒和披露——是如何展开的。结果表明，在治疗过程中，85%的客户至少披露了一个秘密，41%的客户至少隐瞒了一个秘密，有 18%的疗程包括披露，4%的疗程包括隐瞒。随着时间的推移，客户不太可能披露秘密，他们选择隐瞒的秘密被评为不太重要。与未披露秘密的疗程相比，客户在披露秘密的疗程后对工作联盟的评价较低，尽管当被认为是重要的秘密被披露时，工作联盟的评价并不差。与未披露秘密的疗程相比，客户在披露秘密的疗程后对疗程质量的评价较高，尤其是当他们披露困扰的秘密时。客户对他们的披露往往持中立或积极的态度。讨论了对实践和研究的影响。（PsycInfo 数据库记录（c）2023 APA，保留所有权利）。
