http://solutionsacademy.net/2009/07/12/how-do-we-know-that-what-we-do-works/ Kirsten at large -- What I am up to (more info: www.solutionsacademy.com) Mon, 06 Feb 2012 08:08:38 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.2.1 http://solutionsacademy.net/2009/07/12/how-do-we-know-that-what-we-do-works/#comment-1974 Twitted by KirstenDierolf Wed, 15 Jul 2009 02:54:13 +0000 http://solutionsacademy.net/2009/07/12/how-do-we-know-that-what-we-do-works/#comment-1974 [...] This post was Twitted by KirstenDierolf [...] […] This post was Twitted by KirstenDierolf […]

]]> http://solutionsacademy.net/2009/07/12/how-do-we-know-that-what-we-do-works/#comment-1970 Coert Visser Mon, 13 Jul 2009 14:17:18 +0000 http://solutionsacademy.net/2009/07/12/how-do-we-know-that-what-we-do-works/#comment-1970 Hi Kirsten, Interesting post. I agree that this is comparable and relevant for SF-practitioners. In fact, I think Steve, Insoo, Eve, Wally and all the others of the BFTC have informally done something comparable. They very detailedly and carefully monitored and discussed what happened in all of their conversations with clients. They were looking for things that worked. Of course, they never forgot the fact that there are unique elements in each individual therapy conversation but they also recognized that there was an element of generalizability. They found patterns which work across therapy sessions. From these patterns emerged interventions like scaling questions, miracle question, coping questions, usefulness questions, etc. Also, they were even able to identify formal and semi-formal algorithms which often proved useful. Watching systematically what works over conversations is useful (while always being aware of the unique aspects of each following conversations, of course). You point at an important factor, namely: how do we know when something has worked? What criterion do we use? There are several parameters to take into account: who determines what works: client? therapist? others? some combination?, When is it determined: right away during the conversation?, in next conversations? Soon after the process has been terminated? Long after it has been terminated?, What measures are used: direct verbal reports? observational measures? various objective measures of well being? some combination? best wishes, Coert www.solutionfocusedchange.com Hi Kirsten, Interesting post. I agree that this is comparable and relevant for SF-practitioners. In fact, I think Steve, Insoo, Eve, Wally and all the others of the BFTC have informally done something comparable. They very detailedly and carefully monitored and discussed what happened in all of their conversations with clients. They were looking for things that worked. Of course, they never forgot the fact that there are unique elements in each individual therapy conversation but they also recognized that there was an element of generalizability. They found patterns which work across therapy sessions. From these patterns emerged interventions like scaling questions, miracle question, coping questions, usefulness questions, etc. Also, they were even able to identify formal and semi-formal algorithms which often proved useful. Watching systematically what works over conversations is useful (while always being aware of the unique aspects of each following conversations, of course). You point at an important factor, namely: how do we know when something has worked? What criterion do we use? There are several parameters to take into account: who determines what works: client? therapist? others? some combination?, When is it determined: right away during the conversation?, in next conversations? Soon after the process has been terminated? Long after it has been terminated?, What measures are used: direct verbal reports? observational measures? various objective measures of well being? some combination?
best wishes,
Coert
www.solutionfocusedchange.com

]]>