Table 13.
Case Study Evaluation-tool (CaSE) purpose-based evaluative framework for systematic case studies. Recommended responses: open-ended questionnaire
| 1 Representative cases (purpose: typicality) | |
| The studied phenomenon | |
| • What is the studied phenomenon or ‘conceptual type’ (e.g, clinical condition, therapeutic technique, patient’s symptoms)? There is generally one specific phenomenon. | |
| • Is the studied phenomenon sufficiently distinguished from other kinds of (potentially similar) phenomena? | |
| Patient data | |
| • Are patient characteristics relevant to the wider clinical population? (e.g. is there a good match between symptoms and experiences?) | |
| • What is the rationale for choosing this patient? | |
| • Does the patient present any unique or deviant characteristics? (e.g. symptoms that are not representative of the studied clinical condition) | |
| The clinical discourse | |
| • Is there a detailed clinical narrative in the form of therapist reflections and observations? | |
| • Does the case move from the particularity of the patient to a more general (theoretically abstract) claim about the studied phenomenon? | |
| Research | |
| • Is there a sufficient review of literature on the studied phenomenon? | |
| • Does the case refer to other cases and/or studies that replicate their findings? | |
| Case purpose | |
| • Does the case demonstrate the typical characteristics of the studied phenomenon? | |
| • Does the case provide findings relevant for the broader clinical population? | |
| • Can the case contribute to psychotherapy theory? | |
| 2 Descriptive cases (purpose: particularity) | |
| The studied phenomenon | |
| • What phenomena are studied in the case (e.g. clinical condition, therapeutic technique, patient’s symptoms)? There can be multiple phenomena. | |
| • Does the case present events and processes common to clinical practice? (e.g. therapeutic relationship difficulties) | |
| Patient data | |
| • Are patient characteristics described in detail, with particular attention to uniqueness, subjectivity and meaning of “lived experiences”? | |
| • Does the case narrative convey interpersonally sharable statements, ruminations, metaphors? | |
| • Is the patient clearly positioned within their cultural and psycho-social context? | |
| The clinical discourse | |
| • Does the case convey the process behind therapist’s practical decisions in the consulting room? | |
| • Does the case provide ‘know-how’ knowledge on how practitioners can deal with clinically salient issues and situations? | |
| • Does the therapist provide a reflexive account on how their views and theoretical assumptions might impact the therapeutic relationship and clinical decision-making? | |
| Research | |
| • Does the case include patient’s self-assessment? (e.g. through self-report measures and dialogic exchange) | |
| • Does the case include excerpts of dialogue between therapist and patient? | |
| Case purpose | |
| • Does the case provide a relational understanding (with which readers can empathise) of the studied phenomenon? | |
| • Does the case narrative sufficiently portray ‘real analytic practice’ rather than ‘ideal models’? (e.g. by demonstrating disparity between clinical theory/research and practice) | |
| • Can the case contribute to psychotherapy training and practice? | |
| 3 Unique cases (purpose: deviation) | |
| The studied phenomenon | |
| • What phenomena are studied in the case (e.g. clinical condition, therapeutic technique, patient’s symptoms)? There can be multiple phenomena. | |
| • Does the case explain how the studied phenomena are different or unique from the established theory/research? (e.g. the patient’s experience of transference is different from the experiences of transference across a broader clinical population) | |
| Patient data | |
| • Are patient characteristics described in detail, with particular attention to uniqueness, subjectivity and meaning of “lived experiences”? | |
| • What is the rationale for choosing this patient? | |
| The clinical discourse | |
| • Does the case convey a detailed description of therapeutic interventions and their effectiveness? | |
| • Does the therapist provide a reflexive account on how their views and theoretical assumptions might impact clinical decision–making, particularly in terms of their understanding of the uniqueness/deviation in the case? | |
| • Does the case include sufficient considerations as to the cause of the deviation/uniqueness in patient’s clinical condition or symptoms? | |
| Research | |
| • Does the case convey more than one theoretical and/or research perspective? (e.g. clinical assessment by multiple practitioners or data analysis by multiple researchers) | |
| • Are there considerations of alternative explanations to the observed deviation/uniqueness of the case? (e.g. by referring to other published case studies or research) | |
| Case purpose | |
| • Does the case provide insight into a novel phenomenon? (e.g. by describing unique patient symptoms or experiences) | |
| • Does the case provide novel theoretical knowledge in relation to unique/deviant phenomenon? (E.g., by developing a new therapeutic technique) | |
| • Can the case contribute to psychotherapy theory, training and/or practice? | |
| 4 Critical cases (purpose: falsification/confirmation) | |
| The studied phenomenon | |
| • What is the studied phenomenon in the case (e.g. clinical condition, therapeutic technique, patient’s symptoms)? There is generally one specific phenomenon. | |
| • Does the case seek to test an existing theory/research about the studied phenomenon? (e.g. testing the effectiveness of a well–established therapeutic intervention) | |
| Patient data | |
| • Are patient characteristics described in detail? | |
| • Is the patient clearly outlined within their cultural and psycho-social context? | |
| • What is the rationale for choosing this patient? | |
| The clinical discourse | |
| • Does the case link therapist narrative and observations with the theoretical/research considerations? | |
| • Does the case convey a detailed description of therapeutic interventions and their effectiveness? | |
| Research | |
| • Does the case convey more than one theoretical and/or research perspective? (e.g. clinical assessment by multiple practitioners or data analysis by multiple researchers) | |
| • Does the case show how the theory/research that is being tested accounts for the clinical observations in the case? | |
| • Does the case provide a sufficient explanation on why their chosen theory/research is more appropriate than another? | |
| • If the case falsifies an existing theory/research, are there sufficient sample considerations? (e.g. the case may be unique and therefore the original theory/research still stands) | |
| Case purpose | |
| • Does the case examine an existing theory/research successfully? (e.g. by showing whether a theory is effective with a specific patient) | |
| • If the case falsifies an existing theory/research, does it offer any novel suggestions or revisions to the falsified theory/research? | |
| • If the case confirms an existing theory/research, does it rule out alternative explanations for the tested hypothesis? (e.g. to show that a therapeutic intervention is effective, the positive effects of other variables like medication may need to be ruled out) | |
| 5 Exploratory cases (purpose: hypothesis generation) | |
| The studied phenomenon | |
| • What phenomena are studied in the case (e.g. clinical condition, therapeutic technique, patient’s symptoms)? There can be multiple phenomena. | |
| • Is the case discovery-led, in the sense that it explores data as it emerges? | |
| • Does the case contain new hypotheses about the studied phenomena? | |
| Patient data | |
| • Are patient characteristics described in detail? | |
| • Is the patient clearly outlined within their cultural and psycho-social context? | |
| The clinical discourse | |
| • Does the case link therapist narrative and observations with the theoretical/research considerations? | |
| • Does the case narrative explore the ‘how’ and ‘what’ questions in relation to patient experiences and treatment processes? | |
| • Does the case identify complex processes and mechanisms in the treatment and link them to theory? | |
| Research | |
| • Is there a sufficient review of literature of the studied phenomenon? | |
| • Does the case convey more than one theoretical and/or research perspective? (e.g. clinical assessment by multiple practitioners or data analysis by multiple researchers) | |
| • Does the data converge? Are different/conflicting findings reported? | |
| Case purpose | |
| • Does the case convey more than one set of outcomes? | |
| • Does the case indicate future research trajectories? | |
| • Can the case contribute to psychotherapy theory, training and/or practice? | |
| 6 Transferable cases (purpose: generalisability) | |
| The studied phenomenon | |
| • What is studied phenomenon (e.g. clinical condition, therapeutic technique, patient’s symptoms)? There is generally one specific phenomenon. | |
| • Is the studied phenomenon explicitly defined and differentiated from other kinds of (potentially similar) phenomena? | |
| Patient data | |
| • Are patient characteristics described in detail? | |
| • Is the patient clearly outlined within their cultural and psycho-social context? | |
| • Does the patient present characteristics typical of the studied phenomenon? Is there sufficient information (clinical, theoretical) to link the patient with the studied phenomenon? | |
| The clinical discourse | |
| • Is there a detailed clinical narrative in the form of therapist reflections and observations? | |
| • Does the case shed light on specific characteristics of the therapeutic process? (e.g. the development of therapeutic alliance) | |
| • Is the case narrative theme-focused? (e.g. the case identifies specific treatment patterns across different sessions) | |
| • Is there a clear description of the therapeutic process, usually involving a session-by-session description? | |
| Research | |
| • Is there a sufficient review of literature on the studied phenomenon? | |
| • Does the case involve a specific therapeutic, theoretical and research framework, and is the framework made explicit by the researchers? | |
| • Is there a clear description of the research process? (e.g. step-by-step description of data analysis procedures) | |
| Case purpose | |
| • Does the case provide information about common or specific psychotherapy processes? | |
| • Can the case be compared to and aggregated with other psychotherapy case studies on the basis of its studied phenomenon and formulation? |