Techniques of Structural Family Assessment: A Qualitative Analysis of How Experts Promote a Systemic Perspective

Abstract

The trajectory of assessment in structural family therapy moves from a linear perspective, in which problems are located in the identified patient, to an interactional perspective, in which problems are seen as involving other members of the family. Minuchin, Nichols, & Lee (2007) developed a 4-step model for assessing couples and families consisting of: (1) broadening the definition of the presenting complaint to include its context, (2) identifying problem-maintaining interactions, (3) a structurally focused exploration of the past, and (4) developing a shared vision of pathways to change. To study how experts actually implement this model, judges coded video recordings of 10 initial consultations conducted by three widely recognized structural family therapists. Qualitative analyses identified 25 distinct techniques that these clinicians used to challenge linear thinking and move families toward a systemic understanding of their problems. We discuss and locate these techniques in the framework of the 4-step model.

Key Elements of a Family Intervention for Schizophrenia: A Qualitative Analysis of an RCT

“…Thus, the target of our study was by no means a context‐specific, historical‐sociological exploration. We were able to conduct a qualitative analysis that allowed a better understanding of this treatment approach, similar to what has been achieved in other fields (Nichols & Tafuri, ). One should bear in mind that the findings we presented were based on a specific FIP approach, that is, the model from Leff and colleagues.…”

Thinking and Working Relationally: Interviewing and Constructing Hypotheses to Create Compassionate Understanding

“…We view the process of therapy as aimed toward addressing and potentially changing both meaning and behaviors (Bruner, ). We attend to the patterns of interaction (Scheinkman & Fishbane, ; Watzlawick & Weakland, ; Wile, ) as well as to the family organizations or structures that constrain relational bonds (de Shazer, ; Haley, ; Minuchin, ; Minuchin, Nichols, & Lee, ; Nichols & Tafuri, ). We strive to understand how multigenerational relational patterns, attachments, legacies, and loyalties (Boszormenyi‐Nagy & Spark, ; Bowen, ; Byng‐Hall, ; Greenberg & Johnson, ; Johnson, ; Kerr & Bowen, ; McGoldrick, Gerson, & Shellenberger, ), life‐cycle location of the family or couple (Carter & McGoldrick, ; McGoldrick, Carter, & Garcia‐Preto, ), closely held themes and beliefs (Papp & Imber‐Black, ), relational premises (Boscolo, Cecchin, Hoffman, & Penn, ; Selvini, Boscolo, Cecchin, & Prata, ), life events (Gurman, Waltz, & Follette, ), and relational histories (Sheinberg & True, ) inform the behaviors, emotions, and meanings people attach to their relationships.…”

Editorial: Conflicts of Interest in Publication about Families and Family Therapy

“…If those scholars don't write about the content of their treatments or engage in the research about them, no dissemination or research about those treatments, programs, or instruments would likely occur, and there likely would be no validated instruments or evidence‐based treatments and programs. Thus, Family Process has a distinguished history of publication of the presentation of family therapy models, such as Emotion‐focused Therapy (Goldman & Greenberg, ), Enhanced Cognitive Behavior Couple Therapy (Baucom, Belus, Adelman, Fischer, & Paprocki, ), Narrative Therapy (Dickerson, ), Multidimensional Family Therapy (Liddle, ), and Integrative Problem Centered Metaframeworks (Breunlin, Pinsof, Russell, & Lebow, ; Pinsof, Breunlin, Russell, & Lebow, ); research about specific models such as structural family therapy (Nichols & Tafuri, ), emotion‐focused therapy (Greenman & Johnson, ), the Oregon model of Parent Management Training (Sigmarsdóttir & Guðmundsdóttir, ), and Brief Strategic Family Therapy (Santisteban, Suarez‐Morales, Robbins, & Szapocznik, ); reviews of research about specific models (Santisteban et al., ) and about the field more broadly (Darwiche & de Roten, ; Retzlaff, von Sydow, Beher, Haun, & Schweitzer, ; Sexton & Datchi, ; von Sydow, Retzlaff, Beher, Haun, & Schweitzer, ); research about couple and family prevention enrichment programs (Doss, Benson, Georgia, & Christensen, ; Hektner, Brennan, & Brotherson, ; Petch, Halford, Creedy, & Gamble, ; Valdez, Padilla, Moore, & Magaña, ; Wilde & Doherty, ); and research about family assessment instruments (Jewell, Carr, Stratton, Lask, & Eisler, ; Mansfield, Keitner, & Dealy, ; Staccini, Tomba, Grandi, & Keitner, ). In almost all of these instances, the authors have some personal relationship with the methods they present and investigate.…”