In this article, we respond to three commentaries by King (2015), Webb (2015), and Hyer and Brandon (2015) concerning our case study of Judith (Ward and Hogan, 2015). We organize our response in terms of five themes. First we discuss the positive features of the case study that were identified, specifically, viewing Judith's case as a successful example of combining the client-centered approach with cognitive training. Second, we consider the various ideas put forward about why the case was successful. For example, Hyer and Brandon suggest that the client-centered approach was the essential catalyst that helped Judith effectively utilize the cognitive training. Third we consider an issue common across the three commentaries, namely, the possible utility of additional neuropsychological testing and medical evidence. We acknowledge that such additional information might have been useful, but question its congruence with Cooper's and McLeod's (2011) "pluralistic psychotherapy" model that we employed, and the likely real-term benefits to the client. Fourth, we review the questions raised by the commentaries that remain unanswered about this case. We suggest that despite not being able to be precise about the severity of Judith's head injury, it is clear that a significant injury did occur, resulting in considerable disruption Judith's work and family life. Finally, we consider what the overall contribution of Judith's case study might be. We conclude by agreeing with King (2015) that, because cases like Judith's can derive great benefit from therapy, considerably more resources should be available for clients like her.
Ward, T., & Hogan, K. (2015). The case of Judith: Reflections on combining a psychoneurological perspective within a client-centered and pluralistic therapy framework. Pragmatic Case Studies in Psychotherapy, 11(1), 55-64. https://doi.org/10.14713/pcsp.v11i1.1887