4.1 Article

Systemic family therapy can be manualized: research process and findings

Journal

JOURNAL OF FAMILY THERAPY
Volume 25, Issue 3, Pages 236-262

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/1467-6427.00247

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Determining the efficacy of therapeutic interventions is becoming an increasing political and ethical necessity. Comparative therapeutic outcome trials are most powerful when there is a precise specification, or manualization, of the forms that therapies took. Manuals have begun to be developed for structural/behavioural family therapy and couple therapy. The development of these manuals is often reliant on experts' self-report, rather than a systematic analysis of the therapeutic process as it happens. This can limit their validity and applicability to standard clinical practice. In addition, no manuals exist which reflect less structured forms of family therapy aimed at incorporating systemic, postmodern and narrative frameworks. The feasibility of producing a workable manual that reflects the fluidity of such practices has been questioned. A research project to systematically create and test such a manual is reported. Multiple data sources and research methods, primarily qualitative, were applied to generate a rich specification of the therapy. In reporting these results the contents of various aspects of the final manual are indicated. Procedures to ensure that the prescribed practice is consistent with a widely used approach to systemic family therapy are also described. The manual will be an important tool for outcome research and therapeutic practice. The account of the research process should be helpful to researchers engaged in constructing a manual for other models of family therapy based on a rigorous analysis of actual practice. The manual itself is available for use by outcome researchers who wish to evaluate this widely used form of systemic family therapy.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available