Principle‐Based Integrative Therapy with Couples: Theory and a Case Example

The Principle‐Based Integrative Therapy (PBIT) framework harnesses the principles of change underlying each theoretical model within integrative couple therapy treatments. PBIT has commonalities with other integrative approaches, and additional advantages stemming from its four tenets that guide therapists in combining strengths across models and overcoming each of their deficiencies. Tenet 1 advises that each model adds a core principle or mechanism of action that other models do not automatically address. Tenet 2 focuses on how techniques of one model may actualize the principles of other models. Tenet 3 ensures complementarity and a lack of conflict across principles. A case study and common case considerations are presented to illustrate how Tenets 1–3 can work in integrating Cognitive‐Behavioral, Multicultural, and Emotionally Focused Therapy models in working with a couple. Finally, Tenet 4 advocates for the use of models and empirically supported principles that also have received empirical support with diverse populations. Prerequisites and training implications for PBIT, and future clinical and research directions to further the utility of PBIT are discussed.     

What Does it Mean to be a Common Factors Informed Family Therapist?

The common factors paradigm in couple and family therapy has gained popularity over the past several decades, leading many therapists to refer to themselves as common factors family therapists. Despite this, no consensus exists on what it means to be a common factors family therapist, or if such a designation even makes sense given that the common factors paradigm is not a model. Synthesizing the existing common factors literature, a case is made for the designation “common factors informed family therapist,” and the following six core principles are outlined that characterize this designation: (1) sees overlap among theories; (2) passionate about theory, not a theory; (3) client centered; (4) monitors hope and the therapeutic alliance; (5) views clients as people rather than objects; and (6) prioritizes healing over therapy. Each of the concepts is discussed in depth, and clinical implications are provided.     

Evaluating Supervision Models in Functional Family Therapy: Does Adding Observation Enhance Outcomes?

This study examined the effects of observation‐based supervision Building Outcomes with Observation‐Based Supervision of Therapy (BOOST therapists = 26, families = 105), versus supervision as usual (SAU therapists = 21, families = 59) on (a) youth externalizing behavior problems and (b) the moderating effects of changes in family functioning on youth externalizing behaviors for adolescents receiving Functional Family Therapy (FFT). Exploratory analyses examined the impact of supervision conditions on youth internalizing problems. In 8 community agencies, experienced FFT therapists (M = 1.4 years) received either BOOST or SAU supervision in a quasi‐experimental design. Male (59%) or female (41%) adolescents were referred for the treatment of behavior problems (e.g., delinquency, substance use). Clients were Hispanic (62%), African American (19%), Non‐Hispanic White (12%), or Other (7%) ethnic/racial origins. Therapists (female, 77%) were Hispanic 45%, African American (19%), White Non‐Hispanic (30%), or other (4%) ethnic/racial backgrounds. Analyses controlled for the presence or absence of clinically elevated symptoms on outcome variables. Clinical outcomes were measured at baseline, 5 months, and 12 months after treatment initiation. Clients with externalizing behavior above clinical thresholds had significantly greater reductions in problem behaviors in the BOOST versus the SAU conditions. Clients below thresholds did not respond differentially to conditions. Supervisors in BOOST had more experience with the FFT model; as such, the observed results may be a result of supervisor experience. The BOOST supervision was associated with improved outcomes on problem behaviors that were above clinical thresholds. The findings demonstrate the importance of addressing client case mix in implementation studies in natural environments.     

Couple therapy,family therapy and systemic interventions for adult‐focused problems: the current evidence base

This paper updates previous similar reviews published in JFT in 2000, 2009 and 2014. It presents evidence from meta‐analyses, systematic literature reviews and controlled trials for the effectiveness of couple therapy, family therapy, and systemic interventions for adults with a range or relationship and mental health problems. The evidence supports the effectiveness of systemic interventions, either alone or as part of multimodal programmes, for relationship distress, psychosexual problems, intimate partner violence, anxiety disorders, mood disorders, alcohol problems, psychosis and adjustment to chronic physical illness.     

Family therapy and systemic interventions for child‐focused problems: the current evidence base

This review updates previous similar papers published in JFT in 2000, 2009 and 2014. It presents evidence from meta‐analyses, systematic literature reviews, narrative literature reviews and controlled trials for the effectiveness of systemic interventions for families of children and adolescents with common mental health problems and other difficulties. In this context, systemic interventions include both family therapy and other family‐based approaches such as parent training, or parent implemented behavioural programmes. The evidence supports the effectiveness of systemic interventions either alone or as part of multimodal programmes for sleep, feeding and attachment problems in infancy; recovery from child abuse and neglect; conduct problems, emotional problems, eating disorders, somatic problems, and first episode psychosis.     

Changes in verbalizations during sandplay: an empirical study

This is a quantitative study of an 11-year-old boy diagnosed with major depression who in all but one session made a sandplay. A computerized system was used to analyse the written verbalizations on four dimensions of positive and negative: emotions, contracts (psychosocial agreements, relationships, etc.), performance (behaviour) and rewards. It was hypothesized that the verbalizations made by the patient (recorded by the therapist) would become more positive and less negative during the course of therapy. The positive and negative values of the four dimensions were correlated with the session number. This was supported on two (performance & contract) of the four positive dimensions (statistically significant). The hypothesis that the negative dimensions would become less negative was supported on all four dimensions (statistically significant). Thus, six of the eight hypotheses were supported. This uninvestigated area of research illustrates verbal interactions between patient and therapist were an important aspect of sandplay therapy. Through reanalysing the sessions for quantitative content, written recording of direct quotes and observation of behaviour, data was entered into a valid and reliable coding system to quantitatively analyze the verbalizations. This analysis of verbalizations of the patient and observations made by the therapist indicates sandplay therapy is multifaceted.