Skip to main content
MMedVellum
MCQsExamsAtlas
DashboardPricing
MMedVellum

The exam atlas that feels like a flagship product — evidence-graded topics and exam tools for MBBS and fellowship preparation. Built to scale to fifty specialties. Educational content only — not medical advice.

llms.txt·psychiatry LLM catalog · sitemap

Atlas

  • Specialty atlas
  • MBBS / Core medicine
  • Dermatology
  • ICU Fellowship (CICM)
  • Anaesthesia
  • Emergency Medicine
  • Psychiatry Fellowship

Study & account

  • MCQ practice
  • Practice alias
  • Exam tools
  • Dashboard
  • Pricing
  • Sign in

© 2026 MedVellum. For education only — not a substitute for clinical judgement.

Clinical Atlas Prestige · Evidence-first

Psych MEQs / SAQsPsychotherapy

Psych MEQs / SAQs · Psychotherapy

Cognitive analytic therapy (MEQ)

FRANZCP-style MEQ on CAT definition, target procedures, phases/tools, landmark evidence, differentials, and fidelity pitfalls.

20 marks20 min
On this page & tools

Target exams

FRANZCPMRCPsychABPNMD-DNB

Target exams

FRANZCPMRCPsychABPNMD-DNB
Prompt
You are a psychiatry registrar in a community service. A 29-year-old with recurrent interpersonal crises, identity instability, and cutting after perceived criticism is referred for 'CAT'. Your service can offer time-limited individual psychotherapy with CAT-trained supervision. (i) Define CAT and reciprocal role procedures. (ii) Name traps, dilemmas, and snags with one clinical example each relevant to this patient. (iii) Outline reformulation, recognition, revision, and ending tools (letter, map, goodbye). (iv) Summarise landmark evidence (include Chanen adolescent early intervention and Clarke adult PD RCT, plus one synthesis or acceptability paper). (v) State how CAT differs from CBT and MBT, and list two fidelity pitfalls. (20 marks)

Model answer

Reveal model answer

(i) Definition. CAT is a time-limited, collaborative, integrative psychotherapy (Ryle) that links cognitive/procedural and object-relations ideas into a shared reformulation of how problems are maintained. Reciprocal role procedures (RRPs) are linked self–other (or self–self) positions — e.g. criticising–criticised, abandoning–abandoned — that organise feeling, thinking, and action and can be re-enacted in therapy.[3][6]

(ii) Traps, dilemmas, snags. Trap: circular sequence that worsens the problem (e.g. tries to please critic → still feels wrong → self-attack → more frantic pleasing → cuts after perceived criticism). Dilemma: false either/or (e.g. either perfect and safe or worthless and rejected). Snag: covert ban on improvement (e.g. “if I get better I abandon my chaotic family role / something bad will happen”). Map her cutting after criticism onto these procedures rather than pejorative labels.[3][6]

(iii) Phases and tools. Reformulation: history + psychotherapy file → shared reformulation letter + sequential diagrammatic reformulation (SDR/map). Recognition: notice RRPs/TPPs in daily life and in session. Revision: exits and role experiments. Ending: goodbye letters, anticipate abandonment enactments, plan follow-up. Typical contracts often 8–24 weekly sessions depending on complexity.[3][6][7]

(iv) Evidence. Chanen 2008: adolescent early intervention CAT vs manualised good clinical care — both improved; CAT faster on some trajectories.[1] Clarke 2013: 24-session CAT vs TAU for personality disorder — CAT superior on key outcomes in trial analysis.[2] Synthesis: Hallam 2021 effectiveness/durability meta-analysis; Simmonds-Buckley 2022 favourable engagement/dropout signals; Calvert 2014 quality review notes limited but growing RCT base.[3][4][5]

(v) Differentials and pitfalls. vs CBT: CAT centres reciprocal roles, letters, and maps more than automatic-thought records alone. vs MBT: MBT aims mentalising under arousal with dual individual+group format; CAT is brief map/letter/exit-focused individual reformulation. Pitfalls: calling unstructured chat “CAT”; writing a shaming letter that re-enacts criticising–criticised roles; ignoring risk while mapping; overclaiming universal guideline first-line status by brand alone.[3][6][7]

Common errors

Equating CAT with CBT; omitting traps/dilemmas/snags; forgetting goodbye/ending work; claiming Chanen proved CAT uniquely superior to all structured care; inventing statute numbers; using exploratory free association without shared reformulation tools.[1][3][6]

References

  1. [1]Chanen AM, Jackson HJ, McCutcheon LK, et al. Early intervention for adolescents with borderline personality disorder using cognitive analytic therapy: randomised controlled trial Br J Psychiatry, 2008.PMID 19043151
  2. [2]Clarke S, Thomas P, James K Cognitive analytic therapy for personality disorder: randomised controlled trial Br J Psychiatry, 2013.PMID 23222038
  3. [3]Calvert R, Kellett S Cognitive analytic therapy: a review of the outcome evidence base for treatment Psychol Psychother, 2014.PMID 24610564
  4. [4]Hallam C, Simmonds-Buckley M, Kellett S, et al. The acceptability, effectiveness, and durability of cognitive analytic therapy: Systematic review and meta-analysis Psychol Psychother, 2021.PMID 32543107
  5. [5]Simmonds-Buckley M, Osivwemu EO, Kellett S, Taylor C The acceptability of cognitive analytic therapy (CAT): Meta-analysis and benchmarking of treatment refusal and treatment dropout rates Clin Psychol Rev, 2022.PMID 35914380
  6. [6]Ryle A The contribution of cognitive analytic therapy to the treatment of borderline personality disorder J Pers Disord, 2004.PMID 15061342
  7. [7]Kellett S, Bennett D, Ryle T, Thake A Cognitive analytic therapy for borderline personality disorder: therapist competence and therapeutic effectiveness in routine practice Clin Psychol Psychother, 2013.PMID 22109975