Defense Mechanism Used in Psychotherapy
Brief Summary of the Article
The article provided reveals much information regarding defense mechanism displayed by adults with psychodynamic cases. Moreover, it has established that Psychodynamic therapy is common in individuals suffering from an intellectual disability. Thus, the majority of the participants who have an intellectual disability are more susceptible to a given disorder. Moreover, the research found that the adults were the most affected because their defense mechanisms had reduced owing to the decreased intellectual ability. In addition, the article has conducted vivid research regarding the matter surrounding defense mechanism exhibited by adults especially those who suffer from intellectual disability. It has proposed radical results that are seen as a way that offer little solution in a reliable manner. Furthermore, the article has showed disparity with other available research material concerning the matter under study.
A wide range of defense mechanisms is used by the individuals suffering from psychodynamic. It may vary from primitive to mature. However, the method of defense displayed by the participants will depend on how the participants respond to the psychodynamic therapy. In addition, the participants have developed various defense styles that help them avoid psychodynamic cases. A constant experience among the participants with very little changes was witnessed in the security structure of the behaviour displayed by the participants who were interviewed during the research.
There were identified some key factors of the participant's defense mechanism. Moreover, it was realized that the participants displayed defense mechanism towards psychotherapy dynamics depending on the condition available at that particular time. For instance, the pattern of the psychotherapy dynamic affected the nature of defense mechanism displayed by the participants. Similarly, the participants’ cognition and behavior show less complexity as compared to other factors. Thus, participants have showed different defense mechanisms as compared to other dynamic phenomena. In addition, less inference has been made by the participants with unique cognition and behavior.
The pattern of defense among the participants also varied depending on the level of psychodynamic. It was examined that different participants would employ different defense mechanisms at different levels. Thus, it was not easy to compare all participants as to their ability to display defense mechanism at a particular stage.
One of the main causes of defense mechanisms occurrence among adults with psychodynamic was found to be a reduction in symptoms that led to the participant's body assuming an average status. Similarly, the rate at which self-esteem changed was seen as a way of making the participants even more reliant on defense mechanisms to fight psychotherapy dynamics. All the above-mentioned factors contributed towards the ability of the adult participants to understand their problematic experiences in different ways. Thus, it is evident that defense mechanisms can be uniformly applied by the participants examined.
Critique Showing Evidence of Ability to Appraise the Article
The assessment to particular parts of current article tries to focus on certain minor matters relating to the defense mechanism of the participants and ignoring major factors that need much attention. Besides, the article has focused on the issue that has not received validation by individuals who are suffering from the psychodynamic. Even the participants who were involved in the study did not validate the use of DMRS. Thus, the article failed to establish the primary cause of the defense mechanism among adults with intellectual disability disorders. Even the individuals with intellectual disability have not validated the process of DMRS used in current article.
During the process of rating defense among adults with a disability, the article focused on little problems and ignored the major ones that had a significant impact on the final results. It had an adverse effect on the results obtained, since it did not give the accurate reflection of what was occurring. It is clear that the article failed to identify the problems related to dissociation and affiliation. Thus, it was difficult to determine the accuracy of the article and tell whatever defense mechanisms are employed by the participants. Moreover, the factors and problems missed are the key issues that determine the defense mechanism used by the adults with intellectual disabilities.
The Article's Theoretical Coherence and Logical Structure
Theoretical coherence of the article is not structured in a way that accurate information can be retrieved. Besides, it was important for the article to show a logical manner of receiving information from the participants rather than collect general information without any procedure. Besides, the evidences pertaining to whether the event under study was positive or negative were collected for the study. As a result, it has helped to develop more reliable evidence-based argument. The inability to follow a logical structure has made the article lack coherence and thus cannot be clearly comprehended. It cannot convince any reader on the defense mechanisms exhibited by individuals with intellectual disabilities.
Methodological Issues in the Studies Reported In the Articles
The methodology of the study in the article is also insufficient and not enough to make a comprehensive conclusion. In respect to the results obtained, the method had many inaccuracies that led to the outcome when very important information was not considered. Moreover, the methodology did not pay much attention to the critical issue that resulted in adults displaying individual defense mechanism as a result of intellectual disability. It was caused by the fact that very little time was paid for the study. In order to gather sufficient amount of information much more time was required. The result was a hindrance to obtaining sufficient information that could have led to a more comprehensive and detailed outcomes.
In addition, it is evident that the psychodynamics require a long-term treatment and thus, need to implement an elaborate methodology to ascertain the defense mechanism. It was not guaranteed in the method used in the article, yet it was subjected to the short duration of methodology application. Instead, the report allocated a small sampling frame for the study. It means that primary information about psychodynamics was omitted in the sample that was not subjected to review.
The Article's Relevance to Clinical Practice
Current article has not paid enough attention to the data regarding clinical practices. Besides, it is of little interest to the clinical practice and thus, not reliable for any reference by clinical practitioners. It is evident that the DMRS use only six participants but make a conclusion based on a large population. Besides, the article places emphasis on the mature level of defense functioning as the only affiliation to the participant's intellectual disability. In addition, the article contains information, which can be regarded as splitting. It is on contrary to the opinion of the clinical practitioners that there cannot be any split of information between defense mechanisms. Moreover, as opposed to what is expected by clinicians, the article reveals that a broad range of protection is available ranging from mature to primitive. Thus, the article seems to have little relevance to the clinical practice.
Recommendation to Improve and Further Advance the Studies
In order to make definite conclusion regarding DMRS, more studies should be conducted to overcome the inaccuracies created by the article. Besides, the intended research must ensure that appropriate and reliable resources are available. In addition, it will be necessary to develop a framework that will help the new study provide sensitive and reliable arguments regarding the matter. Consequently, it will be possible to make a comprehensive conclusion regarding the defense mechanism displayed by adults with intellectual disability. It is, therefore, recommended that another research should be conducted to ascertain the disparities in current article.
Other Constructive Comments
Despite all the shortcomings of the article, much information has been introduced to explain the DRMS and intellectual disability among the participants selected. The article is a good source of secondary information, especially for future studies. It will also simplify the work of any individual who will try to venture into the same research in future. Moreover, the article is commended for the work it has done to bring the idea of DMRS and ID into the discussion. It will help develop solutions to the intellectual disability.
Back Up From Published Literature
Current article opposes the literature that postulates different arguments concerning psychotherapy dynamics. To begin with, the article has found that participants display different defense mechanism as opposed to what other scholars like Rathus (2012) argued about. In addition, the report shows much contrast in the evidence of change in defensive functioning of the participants within the chosen timeframe. Moreover, the article classifies participants in terms of their IQ, a move that has been opposed by Rathus due to the fact that such classification contradicts to the potential of development and etiology. Another contradiction is the proposed training and development of both affected and the non-affected participants by other scholars, as opposed to a given article.