I find myself of different minds concerning this question. Control Mastery is not a theory of techniques so it allows a therapist to find a way of working that best suits her personality. In that way I would agree with Don. I believe that over the last 25 years I have grown as a therapist as I have matured. I am now able to try things with the confidence that I can work in and out of many problems that previously I was afraid of. But we all work from a perspective and view of man. In our hearts we have beliefs about why people come to treatment and what would help people feel and do better.
Weiss's theory is a way of thinking about adaptation and growth and how patients use the therapy process. The theory informs my technique consistently. I ask questions that I would not had thought to consider were I using a different theory. I use the transference to ask what is the test the patient is creating with me in the room. How is the patient using me in a particular moment. What belief is the patient working to overcome. I look to the patient's history to guide me in deciphering the patient's trial action. I am looking for the ways a symptom provided the patient with a sense of safely or alleviated guilt. I believe that patients want to get better and will work to do so rather than resist and hold on to gratification's. I chose this theory because it matched my intuition and maybe that is the salient point. We find theories that work with who we are and what we want to do or be with our patient's. I like who I am in relation to my patients- It fits for me. I think we all ask different questions, although this case conference experience has certainly changed and enlarged the my repertoire to include much more sensitivity to shame issues. The question remains will the outcome end up the same? There is a way that the theory you favor will predict how you will hear a patient's material and respond to it that can be scientifically measured and tested. Control Mastery Theorist's take this question very seriously and our members devote many hours to researching the psychotherapy process and our theory. There are posts summarizing some of the research and a bibliography on the Control Mastery forum if anyone is interested in this part of CM.
My research showed that you could get very high agreement between 10 therapists who were all trained in CMT about how useful (accurate) an intervention might be for a particular patient . It was and would be different with a patient who was working to overcome a different issue. We also found that patients who receive a higher proportion of what we call pro plan interpretations had a better outcomes as measured by many standard measures. My particular study focuses on the acquisition of insight and found the higher the proportion of pro plan interpretations the more insight the patient displayed immediately afer the interpretation. We found the same results for how relaxed, and involved in the treatment the patient was as measured by the experiencing scale. We found that it was more significant to have a higher degree of pro plan interpretations than number of transference interpretations. The next presenter in out case conference (Polly Fretter) did a lot of great research and might be persuaded to respond if people are interested in research. . This research implies to me that the therapists who understand and use the plan concept, and formulate the cases in terms of passing tests and overcoming pathogenic beliefs, will be helped in determining the best ways to respond to their patients. It is of course not the only way to help but It has been shown to consistently be a reliable way to understand the therapy process. Then one is free to use the technique that best fits for him or her.