Equifinality in Functional Analytic Psychotherapy: Different strokes for different folks.

Abstract

Functional Analytic Psychotherapy (FAP) is an interpersonal behavior therapy that relies on a therapist’s ability to contingently respond to in-session client behavior. Valued behavior change in clients results from the therapist shaping more effective client interpersonal behaviors by providing effective social reinforcement when these behaviors occur in or between sessions. One crucial discrimination for therapists to make is the distinction between the topography or physical form of their behavior versus how well or poorly it actually functions to shape client behavior. We notice that there are times when some therapists may focus too sharply on how similar their behavior is to that of a supervisor or prototypical therapist rather than focusing on how effectively their behavior functions as reinforcement. A review of some traditional psychotherapy adherence and competence literature suggests that therapists and supervisors may overly attend to the topography of behavior in assessing treatment fidelity. This paper will suggest strategies to minimize an over-reliance on topography, including shifting the focus from technique to principle.

The Functional Idiographic Assessment Template-Questionnaire (FIAT-Q): Initial psychometric properties

“…Therapy is approached as a continuous process of generating and testing hypotheses about how to effect client improvements. Thus, successful treatments are reflective of a principle of equifinality: while similar final results may be achieved, therapists may follow different paths to obtain them (Darrow, Dalto, & Follette, 2012). For example, consider a depressed client who has assertion skills deficits and is socially inactive.…”

Efetividade de um pacote multicomponente de ensino em FAP sobre os comportamentos de terapeuta e cliente em sessão

“…Ambos são condições antecedentes que podem evocar as respostas alvo. Na clínica, Darrow et al (2012) (Darrow et al, 2012;Follette & Bonow, 2009;Kohlenberg & Tsai, 1991;Krasner, 1971;Waltz & Follette, 2009).…”

“…Do ponto de vista qualitativo, observado em supervisão ao longo da coleta de dados, com Sofia e Hilde havia a dificuldade em adequar as metas terapêuticas finais (CCR2-2) para o que as clientes conseguiriam emitir no momento (CCR2-1). Isso era um impeditivo para o procedimento de modelagem, já que o critério de aproximações sucessivas é importante para partir do repertório de entrada da cliente e modelá-lo em direção às metas terapêuticas (Darrow et al, 2012;Follette & Bonow, 2009;Kohlenberg et al, 1999;Kohlenberg & Tsai, 1991;Waltz & Follette, 2009;Tsai et al, 2009). No caso de Jorge, também essa habilidade precisou ser construída ao longo do procedimento, entretanto, era maior a dificuldade no estabelecimento de CCR (paralelos funcionais) com sua cliente.…”