The Experience in Personal Social Systems Questionnaire (EXIS.pers): Development and Psychometric Properties

This study presents the theoretical background, development, and psychometric properties of the German and English versions of the Experience in Personal Social Systems Questionnaire (EXIS.pers). It assesses how the members of a personal social system experience their situation within that system. It is designed as a research tool for interventions in which only one member of the system participates (e.g., Family Constellation Seminars). The EXIS.pers was created to measure change on the individual level relating to one's own important personal social system. In Study 1, we used exploratory factor analysis (EFA) for latent variable identification of the original German EXIS.pers (n = 179). In Studies 2 and 3, we used confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to examine the dimensionality of the German (n = 634) and English (n = 310) EXIS.pers. Internal consistencies and cross‐cultural structural equivalence were assessed. EFA indicated that a four‐factor model provided best fit for the German EXIS.pers. For both the German and English EXIS.pers, CFA provided the best fit for a five‐factor bi‐level model that included a general factor (Experience In Personal Social Systems) and four dimensions (Belonging, Autonomy, Accord, Confidence). Good internal consistencies, external associations, and cross‐cultural structural equivalence were demonstrated. This study provides first evidence for the German and English EXIS.pers as an economical and reliable measure of an individual's experience within his or her personal social systems.     

‘You were not born here,so you are classless,you are free!’ Social class and cultural complex in analysis

The unconscious impact of differences in culture and social class is discussed from the perspective of an analyst practising in London whose ‘foreign accent’ prevents patients from placing her within the social stratifications by which they feel confined. Because she is seen by them as an analyst from both ‘inside’ and ‘outside’ the British psycho‐social fabric and cultural complex, this opens a space in the transference that enables fuller exploration of the impact of the British social class system on patients’ experience of themselves and their world. The paper considers this impact as a trans‐generational trauma of living in a society of sharp socio‐economic divisions based on material property. This is illustrated with the example of a patient who, at the point of moving towards the career to which he aspired, was unable to separate a sense of personal identity from the social class he so desperately wanted to leave behind and walk the long avenue of individuation. The dearth of literature on the subject of class is considered, and the paper concludes that not enough attention is given to class identification in training.     

My Brother’s Keeper? The Sibling Subsystem in the Context of Physical and Sexual Child Abuse

The sibling subsystem is of central importance and a possible protective factor for children. Nevertheless, it remains surprisingly understudied and lacks any theoretical or conceptual framework. The current study explored the sibling subsystem in the context of child abuse (CA). Thorough thematic analysis was conducted on the narratives of 30 children referred to forensic interviews following suspected physical or sexual abuse by a parent. Aged 4–14, all had at least one sibling each and referred to this sibling during their interviews in the specific context of the CA they had experienced. Their narratives shed light on two dynamics that can characterize the sibling subsystem in the context of CA: compensation and spillover of the trauma into the sibling subsystem. They stress the centrality of the sibling subsystem in the children’s lives and the siblings’ role in the children's survival of CA. The current study’s findings emphasize the urgency of continuing to develop studies in this area, as they will likely contribute to both prevention and intervention efforts.     

Communication of Information about Genetic Risks: Putting Families at the Center

Genetic information is a family affair. With the expansion of genomic technologies, many new causal genes and variants have been established and the potential for molecular diagnoses increased, with implications not only for patients but also their relatives. The need for genetic counseling and intrafamilial circulation of information on genetic risks grew accordingly. Also, the amount and, particularly, the complexity of the information to convey multiplied. Sharing information about genetic risks with family members, however, has never been an easy matter and often becomes a source of personal and familial conflicts and distress. Ethical requisites generally prevent healthcare professionals from directly contacting their consultands' relatives (affected or still at risk), who often feel unsupported throughout that process. We discuss here the communication of genetic risks to family members. We first consider genomic testing as a basis for family‐centered health care, as opposed to a predominant focus on the individual. We reviewed the literature on sharing genetic risk information with family members, and the associated ethical issues for professionals. Some clinical cases are presented and discussed, and key issues for meeting the needs of individuals and families are addressed. We argue that genetic information is inextricably linked to the family and that communicating about genetic risks is a process grounded within the broader milieu of family relationships and functioning. We conclude for the need for a more family‐centered approach and interventions that can promote sensitive attitudes to the provision of genetic information to and within the family, as well as its inclusion in educational and training programmes for genetic healthcare professionals.     

From Couple Therapy 1.0 to a Comprehensive Model: A Roadmap for Sequencing and Integrating Systemic,Psychodynamic, and Behavioral Approaches in Couple Therapy

Couple therapy is a complex undertaking that proceeds best by integrating various schools of thought. Grounded in an in‐depth review of the clinical and research literature, and drawing on the author's 40‐plus years of experience, this paper presents a comprehensive, flexible, and user‐friendly roadmap for conducting couple therapy. It begins by describing “Couple Therapy 1.0,” the basic conjoint couple therapy format in which partners talk to each other with the help of the therapist. After noting the limitations of this model, the paper introduces upgrades derived from systemic, psychodynamic, and behavioral/educational approaches, and shows how to combine and sequence them. The most important upgrade is the early focus on the couple's negative interaction cycle, which causes them pain and impedes their ability to address it. Using a clinical case example, the paper shows how all three approaches can improve couple process as a prerequisite for better problem solving. Additional modules and sequencing choice points are also discussed, including discernment counseling and encouraging positive couple experiences.     

The Score Family Assessment Questionnaire: A Decade of Progress

This paper reviews a decade of research (2006–2016) on a family assessment instrument called the Systemic Clinical Outcome and Routine Evaluation (SCORE). The SCORE was developed in Europe to monitor progress and outcome in systemic therapy and has been adopted by the European Family Therapy Association as the main instrument for assessing the outcome in systemic family and couple therapy. There are currently six main versions of this instrument: SCORE‐40, SCORE‐15, SCORE‐28, SCORE‐29, Child SCORE‐15, and Relational SCORE‐15. It has also been translated into a number of European languages. Fifteen empirical studies of the SCORE “family of measures” have been conducted. Most have aimed to establish psychometric properties of these instruments in English and other languages. Others have used the SCORE to document the level of family adjustment in clinical samples or evaluate outcome in treatment trials. There is now sufficient evidence for the reliability and validity of the SCORE to justify the use of brief versions of this instrument to monitor progress and outcome in the routine practice of systemic therapy.