The conceptual clustering of numerous concepts from family therapy and other social science fields reveals two significant dimensions of family behavior, cohesion and adaptability. These two dimensions are placed into a circumplex model that is used to identify 16 types of marital and family systems. The model proposes that a balanced level of both cohesion and adaptability is the most functional to marital and family development. It postulates the need for a balance on the cohesion dimension between too much closeness (which leads to enmeshed systems) and too little closeness (which leads to disengaged systems). There also needs to be a balance on the adaptability dimension between too much change (which leads to chaotic systems) and too little change (which leads to rigid systems). The model was developed as a tool for clinical diagnosis and for specifying treatment goals with couples and families.

This paper updates the theoretical work on the Circumplex Model and provides revised and new hypotheses. Similarities and contrasts to the Beavers Systems Model are made along with comments regarding Beavers and Voeller's critique. FACES II, a newly revised assessment tool, provides both "perceived" and "ideal" family assessment that is useful empirically and clinically.

In this article we argue that much of what makes one treatment effective is common to other forms of effective treatment--both in psychotherapy generally and in marital and family therapy (MFT) specifically. Yet MFT has largely ignored the research on common factors. In this article we present a moderate view of common factors that, while repudiating the extreme position that there is no difference among treatment models, stresses that there are common factors and mechanisms of change that undergird most forms of successful treatment. These common mechanisms of change should be given more attention in our field, which has tended to emphasize the uniqueness of our sacred models. We delineate some of the major common factors, review the empirical evidence for them, and discuss implications of adapting a common factors informed approach to family therapy.

In this article, we discuss the role of the therapist in change in couple and family therapy. We argue that the therapist is a key change ingredient in most successful therapy. We situate our discussion in the common factors debate and show how both broad and narrow common factor views involve the therapist as a central force. We review the research findings on the role of the therapist, highlight the strengths and weaknesses of this literature, and provide directions for future research. We then use this review as a foundation for our recommendations for theory integration, training, and practice.

The papers in this volume offer compelling evidence that MFT is making significant progress toward becoming an evidenced based discipline. Nonetheless, a large gap persists between research and practice, which perpetuates a false dichotomy between the art and science of treatment and has other deleterious consequences for the field. The methodological strengths of the investigations reported, which focus on clinical trials, are discussed along with concerns raised about this type of research. Several important challenges facing MFT research in the decades ahead are described. Finally, MFT education must be changed substantially to give more emphasis to the science of the discipline.

Qualitative research is becoming accepted by the scientific community as a viable way to explore and understand socialscience phenomena. The purpose of this paper is to describe the essential features of the qualitative research paradigm and to encourage further development of that paradigm in the field of family therapy. First, typical characteristics of qualitative research designs are delineated; these characteristics are illustrated with two extended examples from the qualitative research literature in the field of education. Next, possible applications of the qualitative paradigm to research issues in the field of family therapy are discussed. Finally, potential pitfalls that could inhibit the development of qualitative family therapy research are examined. It is hoped that this paper will serve as a stimulus for the development of qualititative research in the field of family therapy.

This article serves as an introduction to this third version of research reviews of couple and family therapy (CFT) that have appeared in this journal beginning in 1995. It also presents a methodological and substantive overview of research in couple and family therapy from about 2001/2002 to 2010/2011 (the period covered in this issue), while also making connections with previous research. The article introduces quantitative research reviews of family-based intervention research that appear in this issue on 10 substantive areas including conduct disorder/delinquency, drug abuse, childhood and adolescent disorders (not including the aforementioned), family psycho-education for major mental illness, alcoholism, couple distress, relationship education, affective disorders, interpersonal violence, and chronic illness. The paper also introduces the first qualitative research paper in this series, as well as a paper that highlights current methodologies in meta-analysis. The first part of this article rates the 10 content areas on 12 dimensions of methodological strength for quantitative research and makes generalizations about the state of quantitative methodology in CFT. The latter part of the papers summarizes and makes comments on the substantive findings in the 12 papers in this issue, as well as on the field as a whole.

The findings from a meta‐analysis of 85 studies of premarital, marital, and family enrichment, representing 3,886 couples or families are presented. Metaanalysis is a method for statistically aggregating and evaluating empirical findings. Findings from the study are discussed in terms of overall enrichment effectiveness as well as salient program, subject, design, measurement, and analysis characteristics. The enrichment studies yielded an average effect size of .44, which indicates that the average person who participates in enrichment is better off following intervention than 67% of those who do not. The most powerful factors related to outcome were measurement variables rather than those related to program content, structure, leadership, or participant characteristics. Implications of these findings are discussed.