u05a1-Interview Project-COUN5220-Sec.7-Intro.

to Marriage and Family Therapy-

(Andre Judice)-Nichole Oster-Feb.14th, 2010
Google Doc- (http://docs.google.com/Doc?
id=dqkfptf_4924v66x8dv) or published at http://docs.google.com/View?
id=dqkfptf_4924v66x8dv

Project Content
The following written components of the project should be delivered in one final paper, due in
Unit 5.

Questions for the Interview:

1. Provide the set of interview questions that you developed.

2. Explain your rationale for your choice of each question. Include all 12–16 questions

(6–8 questions based on an individual linear perspective, and 6–8 questions based on a systemic
perspective).

Reflection Paper:

Write a 4–5 page paper reflecting on the interview process and experience.
Articulate the themes and content that emerged with each set of questions you asked (both linear
and systemic).

Compare and contrast the themes and content that emerged from both the linear questions and
systemic questions.

Reflect on your role in the interview process by responding to the following questions:

• How was taking a stance as an observer for the linear questions different from
taking the stance of an observer-participant for the systemic questions?

• How did each approach (the two different sets of questions) influence the kind of
relationship you developed with the interviewee?

What other differences did you notice resulting from each approach?

• Were you aware of the influence of multicultural or diversity issues regarding

race, gender, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, or other considerations?

• Assess your ability to be curious. How did the curious stance influence the
interview?
 • Describe what you did in the interview that you liked, and what you would like to
have done differently.

• Comment on what you learned through this project about yourself and the therapy
profession. How might your experience with this project inform your professional work?

Project Requirements

To achieve a successful project experience and outcome, you are expected to meet the following
requirements.

• Research and references:

o Include at least 2 references in your reflection paper analysis, to support

your statements or reasoning.

(References from materials studied in this course are appropriate sources.)

• Formatting: Use APA, 5th edition formatting, including:

o Correct in-text citations.

o Proper punctuation.
o Double-spacing throughout.
o Proper headings and subheadings.
o No skipped lines before headings and subheadings.
o Proper paragraph and block indentation.
o No bolding.
o No bullets.

Refer to the APA Style and Formatting module in Capella’s Online Writing Center on
iGuide for more information.

Written communication: Establish precise written communication that focuses on

the specific goals of the course project.

1. Include a set of linear and a set of systemic questions, and demonstrates a strong
understanding of both concepts. (3 points)
2. Describe the themes and content that emerged with each set of questions, both
linear and systemic. (3 points)
3. Compare and contrast the themes and content that emerged from the linear
questions and systemic questions. (3 points)
4. Reflect on own role as the interviewer in the process. (3 points)
u05a1-Interview Project-COUN5220-Sec.7-Interview Questions for Lashon Jenkin

Download the original attachment

Linear questions:

1. What specifically makes you feel like you are not appreciated at work?

Often, there are times where I don’t feel appreciated by my agency. Their focus most of the time
is on the numbers and procedures and they are not sensitive to the needs of the employees. In
other times, the agency will try to show the employees how much they are appreciated by
planning mini treats which consist of a day doing something other than working (during working
hours) with co-workers. The agency will also plan an Employee Appreciation Week for the
entire company. The celebration starts on a Monday and runs through Friday. Each day is a
different theme for fun to show the employees how valuable they are to the agency and the
families they serve. This time only occur once a year and this is why the appreciation is not felt
during the other times of the year. As a seasoned worker in this field, I consistently focus on why
I choose this field and how the families (most of them) are helped because of what I do. This
gives me some feeling of appreciation from a different a source.

2. When you think about the possibility of changing careers, what thoughts come to mind? On
your way to work, what feelings do you experience or thoughts do you have?

The interviewee has been thinking about this for several months now. Thoughts about changing
careers are very exciting. The interviewee realized that changing careers would provide new and
challenging experiences. The interviewee feels that she is at point in her life that change will
provide growth in what she loves doing most which is helping people. Another thought that
come to mind is how changing careers could be better for her family. Before entering into the
field of service services, the interviewee wanted to became a counselor. As a single parent the
interviewee feels that she could have more flexibility to ensure that she could provide more time
with her family.

As the interviewee travels to work, there are many thoughts running through her mind. Many of
them are a list (often very long) of tasks that need to be completed that day with a goal of
completion. Sometime thinking about that list of tasks could be “overwhelming”. Many of those
daily tasks are time sensitive with deadlines. Meeting those deadlines often comes with a
stressful feeling. But, for the most part the interviewee’s day starts off with positive feelings until
that list of daily tasks starts to fall apart.

3. How do you feel when you wake up in the morning on a day in which you go to work?

The interviewee loves what she does. In the morning her feelings are positive about helping and
making a change in someone’s life. However, her day can’t start until she has some Starbucks
coffee. This helps to provide an alert feeling. There are not many days where the interviewee
doesn’t feel like going to work. Her attendance is good and rarely is she out sick. There are some
occasions when she goes into her office while she is on vacation because she needs to complete a
task that could not wait until she return.

4. How does this differ from days in which you are not required to go to work?

Like mentioned before, the interviewee has to learn how to enjoy vacation time off and not think
about work. The interviewee sometimes is unable to take full advantage of her vacation because
she worries about the things that need to be completed. She worries about the fact that the
families whom she works with would not be able to reach her when she is out of the office on
vacation. The interviewee has feeling of obligation to the families she serves and some sense of
possessiveness about her case load. The interviewee had to learn how to “leave the office at the
office” and enjoy time off away from the office. She learned that it required discipline.

5. In what way do you derive satisfaction from doing your job well?

This job comes with many challenges and doing well if often a challenge in itself. The
satisfaction that comes from doing this job is the knowledge that the services and help provided
made a difference. For example, the interviewee feels satisfied when the family she helped is
able to successfully complete all the requirements of their case to regain custody of their
children.

6. What types of relationships do you have with your co-workers?

There are many co-workers that the interviewee has close friendships with and some who are
friends outside of the office. The interviewee feels that for those co-workers who she has worked
with for several years, they are like extended family members. Working with the same people for
many years you start to share certain life events, such as, weddings, births, and even death of
family members. Many of these events bring us closer together as co-workers. When we look at
it most of our day is spent with co-workers.

7. How do you feel your boss values the work that you do, and how much respect does your boss
have for the work that he or she does?

The interviewee feels that she has a good relationship with her immediate supervisor. She and
her supervisor start at the company around the same time. They have experienced the many
changes within agency and supported each other through those changes. The interviewee feels
that her supervisor and others in higher positions values the work she does. However, the
interviewee sometimes feel the other in higher positions don’t show enough concern about
individual feels when they struggle with their job. Some co-workers often feel that they are
“disposable” and the agency could quickly replace them.
The interviewee has a tremendous respect for those in higher positions, including her supervisor.
However, the interviewee is very critical of the supervisor’s expertise. The interviewee feels that
those in higher positions should possess qualities greater than her. Those in higher position
should be able to assist in the professional growth of those in positions that they oversee. The
interviewee have not allows had a respect those who did not appear to the ability to guide others
when they were in a supervisory position. For example, the interviewee had an incident with a
prior supervisor where she disrespected her in the presence of other co-workers. The interviewee
did not feel that the supervisor know all of the facts of particular situations. Therefore, she
disrespectfully corrected. That incident was a teaching lesson for her. She felt really bad about
the behavior she displayed and apologized to the supervisor. She realized that she still needed to
respect her position as a supervisor even though she disagreed with her. She also learned that she
does not comply well with change because this was new supervisor to her at the time.

8. For what length of time have you felt this way about your job? Do you recall when these
feelings began or what events triggered them?

No. As things changed with the agency so will her feeling about the work she does. The
interviewee feels that she would always want to help people. The level of frustration about the
best way to help her families changed over time. As the years went by, her feeling for the people
she helped grew deeper. The family became the main focus and not the system. The system
could be so overbearing sometimes that your loss focus of the family’s needs. For example, the
interviewee’s job consists of a lot of paper work. This paper work includes reports to the courts,
case plans, assessments, referrals for services, and case documentation. All these things are
required by the agency and; therefore, take away from spending time and developing a better
relationship with the families being served.

9. In what way has your job lived up to your expectations (are you doing what you thought you
would be doing)?

Not at this time. Mainly for the reasons stated before. The agency is always trying to find new
ways to provide better service to the families in the system. For example, the CEO of the agency
developed a new program to concentrate on providing services to families before their issues turn
into an abusive situation. His vision is to have more case managers providing this level of
intervention and not have many cases that require the courts intervention. The interviewee feels
that there are more families needing court intervention than those who don’t because most
abusive behaviors are learned. The interviewee feels that the intervention starts at birth for many.
The interviewee understands his vision and thinks it is a good one, but feels that this sort of
intervention would take several years in the making to live up to what is expected.

10. How do you feel you are compensated for the work that you do?

Often there is time when the interviewee feels under paid for amount of time and work put into
making sure that her job is done. The job is a salary position, but the hours worked are far more
that the standard work week.
THEMES EMERGING FROM THE LINEAR QUESTIONS:

Systems Theory questions:

1. What is your boss like; can you describe him or her?

The interviewee’s boss is very passive and likes to please everyone. She often has a difficult time
being stern. She is very committed to the work she does and she too like helping others.

2. What is the dynamic like between you and your current boss?

The interviewee gets alone with her supervisor very well. They each have a mutual respect for
each other.

3. What is the overall environment like at your place of your employment?

The interviewee’s office building consists of several different programs. These programs provide
different services to the children and their families depending on their need or the reason the
agency became involved with them. Some of the programs are adoption specialists, case
management, data support, and prevention programs. The office environment is usually up beat
and everyone gets alone with each other.

4. Can you provide me with a brief description of your workplace?

The building is made up of several cubicles and some offices. The offices are for the supervisors
and the case managers have cubicles. There are several conference rooms in the building for
staffing and meetings.

5. What is the dynamic like between employees at your workplace?

Due to different personality types there is sometimes tension between employees. There are
some times when new workers entering into this field and not fully understand what it involves.
This could cause tension when they don’t respond well to their job. For example, many workers
complain about the amount of time they find themselves working during any given work week.
The supervisory staff is not always sensitive to their concerns; they just want the work completed
in a timely manner. The tension could be mostly seen between staff form the corporate office
and the case managers.
6. What sort of tension or hostility that you have towards work spills over into your home life?

There are times when the frustration from work takes away from the interaction with family
members. The interviewee is a single parent of a little boy. He is very active and loves to go. The
stress and frustration from the job makes the interviewee exhausted physically and mentally.

7. Who or what in particular adds to these difficulties you are currently experiencing at work?
(i.e. is there any particular person you work with or client that makes your life particularly
difficult)?

I would say that it is mainly the clients I work with that make my life difficult. There are some
clients that make my ability to provide effective case management difficult. They are the clients
who feel that the agency is harassing them and nothing is wrong. They refused to corporate with
service providers and they give the case managers a hard time. They compliant about everything,
but yet want others (and other agency programs) to take care of them.

THEMES EMERGING FROM THE SYSTEMIC QUESTIONS:

Lashon’s feedback, in response to Berg’s systemic questions, entails what needs to

be different for her thus establishing reciprocity of solution talk. A few of the many
exemplars of Robin’s feedback based upon the notion of what needs to be different are
listed below:
(002) Probably, um, helping me realize that, you know, a lot of things that,
that go on are just normal everyday life. Um, you know, that, that I'm no
different than anybody else. My experiences are all the same.
(006) It gives me piece of mind.
(014) I’d be much more calm.
(050) He'd say that nothing gets to me. He'd be surprised that nothing gets
to me.
Berg’s SFBT questions of difference allow for the understanding of the contextual
nature of how the questions themselves serve as interventions for the client within
specific moment of therapy talk and create a context for change (McGee et al., 2005). The
outcome of Berg’s questions of difference entails what would be helpful for Robin as
noted by the galleries. In addition, Wing 1 depicts how Berg engages the client and builds
momentum that continues the solution talk as noted in the second wing.
The client, self-control, and picking battles
The second wing, “Robin, self-control & picking battles,” portrays Robin’s
exceptions as punctuated by Berg throughout the transcript as displayed in linear form.
FROM: SFBT-INSOO KIM BERG'S SOLUTION TALK: http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR15-
1/cotton.pdf

Bateson, G. (1972). Steps to an ecology of mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Bavelas, J. B., McGee, D., Philips, B., & Routledge, R. (2000). Microanalysis of communication
on psychotherapy. Human Systems: The Journal of Systemic
Consultation & Management, 11(1), 47-66.
Berg, I. K., & De Jong, P. (1996). Solution-building conversations: Co-constructing a sense of
competence with clients. Families in Society, 77(6), 376-392.
Chenail, R. J. (1990/1991). Bradford Keeney’s cybernetic project and the creation of recursive
frame analysis. The Qualitative Report, 1(2&3). Retrieved May 12,
2006, from http://www.nova.edu./sss/QR/QR1-23/Keeney.html
Chenail, R. J. (1995). Recursive frame analysis. The Qualitative Report, 2(2). Retrieved May 12,
2006, from http://www.nova.edu/sss/QR/QR1-2/rfa.html
Chenail, R. J., & Duffy, M. (2009). Utilizing Microsoft® Office to produce and present recursive
frame analysis findings. The Weekly Qualitative Report, 2(20), 117-
132. Retrieved from http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/WQR/rfa.pdf
Corcoran, J. (2003). Clinical applications of evidence-based family interventions. New York:
Oxford University Press.
Corcoran, J., & Stephenson, M. (2000). The effectiveness of solution-focused therapy with child
behavior problems: A preliminary report. Families in Society, 81(5),
468-475.
De Jong, P., & Berg, I. K. (2002). Interviewing for solutions. Pacific Grove, CA:
Brooks/Cole.
de Shazer, S., Berg, I. K., Lipchik, E., Nunnally, E., Molnar, A., Gingerich, W., et al.(1986).
Brief therapy: Focused solution development. Family Process, 25, 207-
222.
de Shazer, S., Dolan, Y., Korman, H., Trepper, T., McCollum, E., & Berg, I. K. (2007). More
than miracles: The state of the art of solution-focused brief
therapy. New York: The Haworth Press.
Gale, J., & Newfield, N. (1992). A conversation analysis of a solution-focused marital therapy
session. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 18(2), 153-165.
Gingerich, W. J., & Eisengart, S. (2000). Solution-focused brief therapy: A review of the
outcome research. Family Process, 39(4), 477-498.
Keeney, B. P. (1990). Improvisational therapy: A practical guide for creative
clinical strategies. New York: The Guilford Press.
Lipchik, E. (2002). Beyond technique in solution-focused therapy. New York: The Guilford
Press.
McGee, D., Del Vento, A., & Bavelas, J. B. (2005). An interactional model of questions
as therapeutic interventions. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 31(4),
371-384.
Rossman, G. B., & Rallis, S. F. (2003). Learning in the field: An introduction to qualitative
research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Stalker, C. A., Levene, J. E., & Coady, N. F. (1999). Solution-focused brief therapy: One model
fits all? Families in Society:

The Journal of Contemporary Human Services, 80(5), 468-477.

Tomori, C., & Bavelas, J. B. (2007). Using microanalysis of communication to
compare solution-focused and client-centered therapies. Journal of Family
Psychotherapy, 18(3), 25-43.
Trepper, S. T., Dolan, Y., McCollum E. E., & Nelson, T. (2006). Steve de Shazer and the future
of solution-focused therapy. Journal of Marital and Family
Therapy, 32(2), 133-139.

Author Note
Jeffrey Cotton, MS, LMFT, LMHC, is a PhD Candidate in the Family Therapy
program at Nova Southeastern University, Ft. Lauderdale, Florida. Mr. Cotton works at
Hollywood Pavilion’s Intensive Outpatient Program.

The author would like to thank Dr. Ron Chenail, Dr. Lisa C. Palmer, and the late
Insoo Kim Berg for their inspiration and collaboration on this research project.
Correspondence concerning this paper should be addressed to Jeffrey Cotton
(http://www.cotton5150.com), E-mail: cotton5150@aol.com
Copyright 2010: Jeffery Cotton and Nova Southeastern University

Article Citation
Cotton, J. (2010). Question utilization in solution-focused brief therapy: A recursive frame
analysis of Insoo Kim Berg’s solution talk. The Qualitative Report, 15(1), 18-36.
Retrieved from http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR15-1/cotton.pd

REFERENCES

Wright, Lorraine M "Calgary Family Intervention Model: One way to think about change".
Journal of Marital and Family Therapy. FindArticles.com. 14 Feb,
2010. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3658/is_199410/ai_n8725421/

* Bateson, G. (1972). Steps to an ecology of mind. New York: Ballantine Books.

* de Shazer, S. (1988). Clues: Investigating solutions in brief therapy. New York: W. W. Norton.
* Fleuridas, C., Nelson, T., & Rosenthal, D. ( 1986). The evolution of circular questions:
Training family therapists. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 12, 113-
127.
* Keeney, B. (1982). What is an epistemology of family therapy? Family Process, 21, 153-168.
* Lipchik, E., & de Shazer, S. (1986). The purposeful interview. Journal of Strategic and
Systemic Therapies, 5, 88-89.
* Loos, F., & Bell, J. M. (1990). Circular questions: A family interviewing strategy. Dimensions
of Critical Care Nursing, 9(1), 46-53.
* Maturana, H. (1988). Reality: The search for objectivity or the quest for a compelling
argument. The Irish Journal of Psychology, 6(1), 25-83.
* Selvini-Palazzoli, M., Boscolo, L., Cecchin, G., & Prata, G. (1978). A ritualized prescription in
family therapy: Odd days and even days. Journal of Marriage and
 Family Counseling, 4(3), 3-9.
* Selvini-Palazzoli, M., Boscolo, L., Cecchin, G., & Prata, G. (1980). Hypothesizing-circularity-
neutrality: Three guidelines for the conductor of the session. Family
Process, 19, 3-12.
* Tomm, K. (1984). One perspective on the Milan systemic approach: Part II. Description of
session format, interviewing style and interventions. Journal of Marital and
Family Therapy, 10, 253-271.
* Tomm, K. (1985). Circular interviewing: A multifaceted clinical tool. In D. Campbell & R.
Draper (Eds.), Applications of systemic family therapy: The Milan
approach (pp. 33-45). London: Grune & Stratton.
* Tomm, K. (1987). Interventive interviewing: Part II. Reflexive questioning as a means to
enable self-healing. Family Process, 26, 167-183.
* Tomm, K. (1988). Interventive interviewing -- Part III. Intending to ask lineal, circular,
strategic, or reflexive questions? Family Process, 27, 1-15.
* Tomm, K. (1989). Externalizing the problem and internalizing personal agency. Journal of
Strategic and Systemic Therapies, 1(1), 54-59.
* White, M. (1986). Negative explanation, restraint and double description: A template for
family therapy. Family Process, 25, 160-184.
* White, M. (1988-1989). The externalizing of the problem and the re-authoring of lives and
relationships. Dulwich Centre Newsletter, 3-21.
* White, M. (1988). The process of questioning: A therapy of literary merit. Dulwich Centre
Newsletter, 8-14.
* White, M., & Epston, D. (1989). Literate means to therapeutic ends. Adelaide, South Australia:
Dulwich Centre Publications.
* Wright, L. M., & Watson, W. L. (1988). Systemic family therapy and family development. In
C. J. Falicov (Ed.), Family transitions: Continuity and change over the
life cycle (pp. 407-430). New York: Guilford.

References:

Download the original attachment

COUN5220-ASSIGNMENT-u05a1-Google Doc-http://docs.google.com/Doc?
docid=0AWK4511jK8f5ZHFrZnB0Zl80ODJmand2dmh0OA&hl=en

Interview Responses from Lashon Jenkins: assignment unit 5.doc-

https://mail.google.com/mail/?
ui=2&ik=807e355980&view=att&th=126c94b7b9acc849&attid=0.1&disp=vah&zw

assignment unit 5.doc-

https://mail.google.com/mail/?
ui=2&ik=807e355980&view=att&th=126c94b7b9acc849&attid=0.1&disp=vah&zw
Webpage Preview via Gmail Message: (https://mail.google.com/mail/?
ui=2&ik=807e355980&view=att&th=126c94b7b9acc849&attid=0.1&disp=vah&zw)

Download the original attachment

Calgary Family Intervention Model: One way to think about change

Wright, Lorraine M "Calgary Family Intervention Model: One way to think about change".
Journal of Marital and Family Therapy. http://FindArticles.com. 14 Feb,
2010. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3658/is_199410/ai_n8725421/

Calgary Family Intervention Model: One way to think about change. Journal of Marital
and Family Therapy, Oct 1994 by Wright, Lorraine M, Leahey, Maureen

• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• 6
• 7
• 8
• 9
• 10
• …
• 14
• Next

This article defines and describes the Calgary Family Intervention Model (CFIM). CFIM is an
organizing framework conceptualizing the intersect between a particular domain (i.e., cognitive,
affective, or behavioral) of family functioning and a specific intervention offered by a health
professional. Examples and discussion of interventions such as storying the illness experience,
encouraging respite, and asking interventive questions are presented. CFIM is one way that
health professionals can conceptualize about change.

In our clinical teaching and supervision with health professionals, we have often observed a
phenomenon we refer to as monocular focusing. Specifically, health professionals learning
family therapy generally err in one of two ways: either too much focus on family dynamics or
too much focus on interventions. The inability to employ binocular focusing (i.e., not focusing
on both the family and the intervention) frequently results in little or no change. To offer a
balanced conceptualization of family functioning and interventions that would enhance the
possibility of change, we developed the Calgary Family Intervention Model (CFIM). This model
emphasizes a "fit" between the interventions offered by the health professional and the domain of
family functioning. The model also offers specific ideas for interventions in particular domains
of family functioning and the fit between them.

In this article we will define and describe the CFIM. The use of interventive questions to perturb
change in family functioning is discussed and examples of questions are given. Interventions to
effect change in families in particular domains of family functioning are also presented and
discussed. Although our trainee population is primarily health professionals, we believe that
other trainees could be taught the model and would find it clinically useful.
'
Definition and Description
Once a comprehensive family assessment has been completed and family intervention is
indicated, the health professional needs to conceptualize where it is desirable to perturb change.
The CFIM was developed as a companion model to the Calgary Family Assessment Model
(Wright & Leahey, in press). However, CFIM can be utilized following assessment regardless of
the family assessment model and/or instrument utilized. CFIM is an organizing framework
conceptualizing the intersect between a particular domain of family functioning and the specific
intervention offered by the health professional. That is, does the intervention effect change in the
desired domain or not? Table 1 offers a visual portrayal of the fit between a domain of family
functioning and a particular intervention. (Table 1 omitted) The elements of CFIM are
interventions, domains of family functioning, and fit or effectiveness. CFIM focuses on
promoting, improving, and/or sustaining effective family functioning in three domains:
cognitive, affective, and behavioral. We identified these domains in Nurses and Families: A
Guide to Family Assessment and Intervention (Wright & Leahey, 1984) but now have
incorporated them into CFIM.

Interventions can be targeted to promote, improve, or sustain functioning in one or all three
domains of family functioning, but change in one domain will have an impact on another
domain. One intervention can target cognitive, affective, and/or behavioral domains of family
functioning simultaneously. However, we believe that the most profound and sustaining change
will be that which occurs within the family's beliefs (cognition). Change in the affective or
behavioral domains is also mediated through cognition. A significant determining factor of
whether change occurs is if the intervention is selected as a trigger (perturbation) for potential
change by the family. We believe health professionals can only offer interventions to the family.
Whether the family opens space for an intervention depends on their genetic make-up and their
history of interactions (Maturana & Varela, 1992). It is also profoundly influenced by the
relationship between the health professional and the family (Thorne & Robinson, 1989) and the
health professional's ability to invite the family to reflect on their health problems (Wright &
Levac, 1992).

Second-order cybernetics and the work of Maturana (Maturana & Varela, 1992) have influenced
our ideas about effecting change. With regard to interventions, we believe it is unwise to attempt
to ascertain what is "really" going on with a particular family or what the "real" problem is.
Recognizing what is "real," whether it be the problem or the intervention, is always a
consequence of our social construction of the world (Keeney, 1982). Keeney further states that
since family clinicians join their clients in the social construction of a therapeutic reality, the
clinician is also responsible "for the universe of experience that is created" (1982, p. 165).
Maturana (1988) presents another twist on this critical notion of reality by submitting that
individuals (living systems) draw forth reality-they do not construct it, nor does it exist
independent of them. This has implications for health professionals' clinical work with families
in that what we perceive about particular situations with families is influenced by how we
behave (our interventions) and how we behave dependson what we perceive.

Therefore, one way to change the "reality" that family members have drawn forth is to assist
them in the development of new ways of interacting. The interventions we use in this endeavor
are focused on changing cognitive, affective, or behavioral domains of family functioning. As
family members' perceptions and beliefs about each other and their health problems change, so
will their behavior. Interventions that are directed at challenging the meanings or beliefs that
families give to behavioral events also have an impact on decreasing or eliminating
physical/emotional symptoms and suffering (Watson, Bell, & Wright, 1992; Watson &
Nanchoff-Glatt, 1990; Wright, Bell, & Rock, 1989; Wright & Nagy, 1993; Wright & Simpson,
1991; Wright & Watson, 1988).

Interventions
Interventions represent the core of clinical practice with families. There are myriad interventions
that health professionals could choose, but interventions should be tailored to each family and to
the chosen domain of family functioning. Particular interventions will vary for each family
although there may be occasions when the same intervention is used for several families with
differing problems. However, we wish to emphasize that each family is unique and that even
though labeling particular interventions is useful, it does not represent a cookbook approach. The
interventions we have listed are examples of interventions that could be utilized and are not
intended to be inclusive. We have also given examples of interventive questions that have
emerged from our clinical practice and research that have been found to be very useful. The
interventions that we cite are based on several important theoretical foundations: systems,
cybernetics, communication, and change theories.

There are several factors which enhance the likelihood that interventions will perturb change in
the desired domain of family functioning. These factors are outlined in Table 2. (Table 2
omitted)

First, interventions should be related to the problems that health professionals and the family
have collaborated and contracted to change. Second, interventions should be derived from health
professionals' hypotheses about problems and domains of family functioning. Third,
interventions should match the family's style of relating. Fourth, interventions should be linked
to a family's strengths and previous useful solution strategies. We believe families have inherent
resources and that the health professional's responsibility is to invite families to use these
resources in new ways to tackle problems. Fifth, interventions should be consistent with a
family's ethnic and religious beliefs. Sixth, the health professional should devise a few
interventions so that their relative merits can be considered. For example, are these new
interventions for the family or are they "more of the same" solutions the family has already tried?
We do not believe that there is one right intervention, but several useful or effective
interventions. In our experience, we have found that health professionals sometimes reach an
impasse with families when they persist in either using the same intervention over and over or
switching interventions too rapidly.

We must also keep in mind the element of timing with regard to interventions. Interventions do
not just begin within a particular intervention stage of family work. Rather, they are an integral
part of family interviewing, spanning engagement to termination. Normally, interventions used
during family interviewing are based upon the health professional's assessment of the family.
Adequate engagement and assessment of the family will generally increase the effectiveness of
the interventions.

CFIM is not a list of interventions nor is it a list of family functioning. Rather, CFIM provides a
means to conceptualize a fit between domains of family functioning and interventions offered by
the interviewer. It assists in determining the predominant domain of family functioning that
needs changing and what is the most useful intervention that will effect change in that domain.
Through therapeutic conversations, the family and health professional collaborate and co-evolve
to discover the most useful fit. We use the qualitative term fit in a slightly different way than de
Shazer (1988) as we emphasize whether or not the interventions effect change in the presenting
problem. Fit involves a recognition of reciprocity between the health professional's
ideas/opinions and the family's illness experience. Therefore, determining fit may involve some
experimentation or trial and error. It also entails a belief by health professionals that each family
is unique and has particular strengths.

INTERVENTIVE QUESTIONS
One of the simplest, but most powerful, interventions for families experiencing health problems
is the use of interventive questions. Interventive questions are intended to effect change in any
one or all three domains. Health professionals conducting family interviews should remember,
though, that knowledge of when, how, and to what purpose to pose questions is more important
than simply choosing one type of question over another (Lipchik & de Shazer, 1986).

Linear versus Circular Questions

Interventive questions are usually of two types: linear and circular (Tomm, 1987, 1988). Linear
questions tend to inform the health professional while circular questions are meant to effect
change (Tomm, 1985, 1987, 1988). The important difference between these kinds of questions is
their intent. Linear questions are investigative; they explore a family member's
descriptions/perceptions of a problem. For example, when exploring family members'
perceptions of their daughter's anorexia nervosa, the health professional might begin with a linear
question: "When did you notice that your daughter had changed her eating habits?" "How much
does she eat now?" These linear questions, while informing the health professional of the history
of the young woman's eating patterns, also help illuminate family perceptions of or beliefs about
eating patterns. Linear questions are frequently utilized to begin gathering information about
families' problems; circular questions reveal families' understanding of problems.

Circular questions are directed more toward explanations of problems. For example, the health
professional could ask of the same family, "Who in the family is most worried about Cheyenne's
anorexia?" "How does Mother show that she's the one worrying the most?" Circular questions
help discover valuable information because they seek out relationships among individuals,
events, ideas, or beliefs.
The effect of these questions on families is quite distinct. Linear questions tend to be
constraining; circular questions are generative. Circular question introduce new cognitive
connections, paving the way for new or different family behaviors. A linear form of questioning
implies that the health professional knows what is best for the family; it also implies that the
interviewer has become purposive and invested in a particular outcome. Linear questions are
intended to correct behavior; circular questions are intended to facilitate behavioral change.

The primary distinction between circular and linear questions lies in the notion that information
reveals differences in relationships (Bateson, 1972). With circular questions, a relationship
orconnection is always sought among individuals, events, ideas, or beliefs. With linear questions,
the focus is cause and effect. The idea of circular questions evolved from the concept of
circularity and the method of circular interviewing developed by the originators of Milan
systemic family therapy (Fleuridas, Nelson, & Rosenthal, 1 986; Selvini-Palazzoli, Boscolo,
Cecchin, & Prata, 1980; Tomm, 1984, 1985, 1987). Circularity involves the cycle of questions
and answers between families and health professionals that occurs during the interview process.
The health professional's questions are based on information that the family gives in response to
the questions the health professional asks, and thus the cycle continues (Watson, 1992). The
family's responses to the questions provide information for the health professional and the
family. Questions in and of themselves also provide new information/answers for the family. In
these circumstances, they are considered interventions (Fleuridas et al., 1986). Interventive
questions may invite family members to see their problems in a new way and subsequently to see
new solutions. Thus, as the family's answers provide information for the health professional, the
health professional's questions may provide information for the family (Watson, 1992).

Tomm (1987) embellished the types of circular questions utilized by the Milan systemic family
therapy team and identified, defined, and classified various circular questions. Loos and Bell
(1990) have creatively applied the use of circular questions to critical care nursing. Watson
( 1988a, 1988b, 1988c, 1989a, 1989b) demonstrated the therapeutic aspect of circular questions
with families experiencing chronic illness, life-shortening illness, and psychosocial problems.
The circular questions identified by Tomm (1987) that we have found most useful in clinical
practice with families are difference questions, behavioral effect questions, hypothetical/future-
oriented questions, and triadic questions. We have expanded the use of circular questions by
providing examples of questions that can be asked to intervene in the cognitive, affective, and
behavioral domains of family functioning. The type of question, definition, and examples are
given in Table 3. (Table 3 omitted)

There are four types of circular questions (i.e., difference, behavioral effect, hypothetical, and
triadic) that can be used to perturb change in any one or all of the domains of family functioning.
Table 4 illustrates the intersect of various types of circular questions and the domains of family
functioning. (Table 4 omitted) We wish to emphasize strongly that what is most critical is the
effectiveness/usefulness/fit of the question in perturbing change rather thant the specific question
itself.
CASE EXAMPLE
Following is a case example illustrating how to intervene using circular questions in a situation
that health professionals commonly encounter.

Question: How Can Health Professionals Help Families Cope with Chronic Illness?

I have been working with a family in which the wife is experiencing multiple sclerosis. For
several years the couple have coped fairly well. Within the past year, the wife has become
progressively more physically and emotionally dependent. She insists that her husband stay at
home every evening and that they spend every weekend together. He is anxious and told me he
feels trapped. He feels more and more unable to help his wife. Yet he does not want to abandon
her or have her permanently hospitalized. How can I help this couple cope more effectively with
the wife's multiple sclerosis?

Discussion
The extent to which a person's illness affects the family often depends on the nature of the illness
itself. If the illness is a prolonged and complicated one, such as multiple sclerosis, it will most
likely lead to differences in family relationships.

In working with a family in which one member has a chronic illness and requires additional care,
the health professional should intervene and explore the family's cognition and beliefs about the
illness. This intervention is aimed at the cognitive domain of family functioning. For example,
the health professional in this instance may ask the husband and wife what they understand about
multiple sclerosis, how the disease progresses, how long the periods of remission are, and so
forth. In so doing, the health professional may be able to clear up misconceptions and provide
further information.

When the health professional has established a baseline of the couple's understanding of multiple
sclerosis, then he or she can begin to explore their catastrophic expectations about the
progression of the disease. Circular questions can be asked, such as:

To husband: What is the worst thing your wife fears as her multiple sclerosis progresses?
To wife: What is your husband's most pressing worry for the future?

These types of circular questions can be interchanged for husband and wife. Circular questions
aimed at exploring one person's understanding of the other person's beliefs, expectations, and
emotions can also be asked. These questions could also be asked directly to the patient or spouse.
For example, the health professional could ask the patient, "What is the thing you fear most
about your multiple sclerosis progressing?" By exploring the other person's understanding first,
however, the health professional gains more information. If the husband answers that he thinks
his wife fears most that he will have an affair, then this can be discussed during the interview.
This two-step technique of asking the husband about the wife's expectations and then asking the
wife directly about her own expectations is generally quite helpful in eliciting differences in
beliefs.
After catastrophic expectations have been uncovered, they can be discussed realistically. When
these fears of impending catastrophe remain hidden, they tend to impede problem solving and
promote isolation of maladaptive interaction patterns. In this case, if the wife fears that the
husband will lose interest in her as her disease progresses, then this fear needs to be explored
further. If the husband feels trapped and resentful about future care for his wife, then this feeling
too needs to be explored. Some questions that may guide the discussion include:

To wife: How do you show your feelings of fear? What do you do? What effect does this have
on your husband? Is that the effect you would like it to have?
To husband: How do you deal with the extra demands of the illness? How do you show your
feelings to your wife? What effect does this behavior seem to have on her?

These types of circular questions aim at increasing the family's understanding of the present
situation. They provide a focus for the health professional to explore not only the family's
cognition but also their underlying emotional responses. For example, the husband may feel
resentful, anxious, and trapped and may be dealing with these feelings by isolating himself. The
wife may be fearful and behave in a clutching, clingy fashion. Neither person may be aware of
the circular nature of the maladaptive pattern.

When the health professional has helped the couple to recognize the nature of their problem, then
the health professional can help them explore alternative coping strategies leading to new
solutions. For example, the health professional may stimulate the discussion by asking the
following questions:

*How can you deal more realistically with the extra demands on both of you?
*What possibilities might work?
*What probably would never work?
*Who might be most in favor, for example, of inviting a volunteer from the church in on
Saturdays to assist with the caretaking?

In summary, the main way the health professional can assist a family with a chronic illness is to
help them remove cognitive and affective blocks to problem solving. If the husband is
immobilized by guilt and a belief that he is losing his wife because of her illness and the wife is
immobilized by fear, then these blocks need to be gently dislodged to permit creative problem
solving to take place.

OTHER INTERVENTIONS
To illustrate the intersection of three domains of family functioning (cognitive, affective, and
behavioral) and various interventions, we have chosen several other examples of interventions in
addition to circular questions. These examples are not meant to be an exhaustive list. Rather,
they are interventions we have found useful in our own clinical practice and research. The
examples include (a) commending family and individual strengths, (b) offering
information/opinions, (c) externalizing the problem, (d) validating/normalizing emotional
responses, (e) storying the illness experience, (f) drawing forth family support, (g) encouraging
respite, and (h) devising rituals.
These interventions can trigger change in any one or all of the domains of family functioning.
For example, the health professional can use the intervention of offering information to promote
change in cognitive, affective, or behavioral family functioning (see Table 5). (Table 5 omitted)

We will now describe each intervention and offer a case example illustrating its application. We
have chosen to cluster the sample interventions around a particular domain of family functioning.
In doing this, we do not wish to imply that one intervention can only be used to perturb change in
one domain of family functioning. Nor do we want to imply that one intervention is a "cognitive
intervention" and another an "affective intervention." Rather, these are examples of the fit
between a specific problem, a particular intervention, and a domain of family functioning.

INTERVENTIONS TO CHANGE THE COGNITIVE DOMAIN OF FAMILY

FUNCTIONING

Interventions directed at the cognitive domain of family functioning are usually those which
change a particular family's perceptions and beliefs about their health problem in order that they
can discover new solutions to their health problems. We offer the following interventions as
ways to change the cognitive domain of family functioning.

Commending Family and Individual Strengths

We routinely commend families in each session on the strengths observed during the interview.
Commendations differ somewhat from compliments. De Shazer (1988) describes compliments as
statements from the therapist "about what the client has said that is useful, effective, good or fun"
with the purpose of promoting "client-therapist fit and cooperation on the task at hand" (p. 96).
Commendations are the therapist's observations of patterns of behavior that occur across time
(e.g., "your family is very loyal toward one another"), whereas a compliment is often an
observational comment of a one-time event (e.g., "you were very praising of your son today").
Families coping with chronic, life-shortening illness and/or psychosocial problems frequently
feel defeated, hopeless, and/or failures in their efforts to overcome their illnesses or live
alongside of them. Commonly, families coping with health problems have not been commended
for their strengths or made aware of them (McElheran & Harper-Jaques, 1994). The immediate
and long-term positive reactions to such commendations indicate that they are effective
therapeutic actions. Families who internalize commendations appear more receptive to other
therapeutic actions that may be offered.

In one family, an adopted son's behavioral and emotional problems had kept them involved with
health professionals for 10 years. The family clinician commended this family by telling them
that she believed they were the best family for this boy because many other families would not
have been as sensitive to his needs and would probably have given up years ago. Both parents
became tearful and said that this was the first commendation given to them as parents in many
years.

By commending families' competence and strengths and offering them a new opinion of
themselves, a context for change is created, allowing families to discover their own solutions to
problems. By changing the view they have of themselves, families are frequently able to view
the health problem differently and thus move toward more effective solutions.

Offering Information/Opinions
In our experience, families with a hospitalized member have indicated that a high priority is
obtaining information. Many families have expressed frustration at their inability readily to
obtain information or opinions from health professionals. Health professionals can offer to
provide information about the impact of chronic and/or life-shortening illnesses on families. On
the other hand, health professionals can also empower families to obtain information about
resources. We have learned that the latter approach is more useful in some circumstances.

One clinical example concerns a family of two aging parents and their 34-year-old son
experiencing severe multiple sclerosis. The parents were constant, devoted caretakers but had not
had any respite for several months. The son was asked by the health professional if he would be
willing to challenge his belief about himself as being "helpless." The health professional asked
him to take the leadership role in exploring possible resources for caregivers in order that his
parents might have a vacation. As a result of his search, the son discovered that he was eligible
for many financial benefits (e.g., to hire professional caregivers) of which he had previously
been unaware. Shortly afterward, the son made arrangements for 24-hour in-home nursing care
while his parents took a vacation. His parents reported that they felt much less stressed and that
their son was also much happier. He began making efforts to walk using parallel bars, an activity
which he had not done in several months.

In this case example, the health professional offered an opinion to empower the son to change his
cognitive set. The intervention fit the cognitive domain and results also took place in the
affective and behavioral domains of family functioning.

Externalizing the Problem

Externalization of a problem is an innovative intervention developed by Michael White of
Australia (Tomm, 1989; White, 1984, 1986, 1988-1989; White & Epston, 1989). It involves
separating the problem from the personal identity of the client. Instead of viewing the problem as
residing in the person, the problem is externalized and viewed as being outside the person.
Rather than a client being objectified, a problem is objectified (White, 19881989).
Externalization can be achieved during a family interview by introducing questions that
encourage family members to map the influence of the problem in their lives and their influence
in the life of the problem. This is called relative influence questioning (White, 1988). The family
is asked, "How much influence do you have over the problem?" and reciprocally, "How much
influence does the problem have over you and your relationship?"

We have externalized chronic pain (Watson et al., 1992), phobias, epileptic seizures (Wright &
Simpson, 1991), and depressions with dramatic positive results with adults. Externalization of
the problem is also particularly useful with children experiencing phobias, encopresis (White,
1994), enuresis, behavioral problems, and chronic pain. Externalizing the problem has even
proven useful with a teenager who was experiencing depression related to her jealous feelings
about a friend who reminded her of Marilyn Monroe. The problem of jealousy was externalized
as "a case of Marilynitis" and had a very positive outcome (Wright & Park Dorsay, 1989).
INTERVENTIONS TO CHANGE THE AFFECTIVE DOMAIN OF FAMILY
FUNCTIONING
Interventions aimed at the affective domain of family functioning are designed to reduce or
increase intense emotions that may be blocking families' problem-solving efforts. Following are
examples of interventions that can change the affective domain of family functioning.

Validating/Normalizing Emotional Responses

Validation of intense affect can alleviate feelings of isolation and loneliness and assist family
members to make the connection between a family member's illness and their emotional
response. For example, following a diagnosis of a life-shortening illness, families frequently feel
out of control and/or frightened for a period of time. It is important for health professionals to
validate these strong emotions and to reassure and offer hope to families that in time they will
adjust and learn ways to cope.

Storying the Illness Experience

Too often family members are only encouraged to tell the medical story or narrative of their
disease rather than the story of their experience of their illness (Frank, 1991). Through
therapeutic conversations, health professionals can create a trusting environment for open
expression of family members' fears, anger, and sadness about their illness experience. Having
an opportunity to express the impact of the illness upon the family and the influence of the
family upon the illness from each family member's perspective validates their experience. This is
very different from limiting or constraining family stories to symptoms, medication, and physical
treatments. Providing a context for the sharing of the illness experience among family members
legitimizes intense emotions.

Drawing Forth Family Support

Health professionals can enhance family functioning in the affective domain by assisting family
members to listen to each other's concerns and feelings (Craft & Willadsen, 1992).
This can be particularly useful at times when a family member may be dying or has died (Wright
& Nagy, 1993). Through fostering opportunities for family members to express this painful
experience, the health professional can enable the family to draw forth their own strengths and
resources to support one another. This type of family support can prevent families from
becoming unduly burdened or defeated by an illness.

INTERVENTIONS TO CHANGE THE BEHAVIORAL DOMAIN OF FAMILY

FUNCTIONING
Interventions directed at the behavioral domain assist family members to interact and thus
behave differently in relation to one another. This change is most often accomplished by inviting
some or all family members to engage in specific behavioral tasks. Some tasks will be given
during a family meeting so that the health professional can observe the interaction; others may be
experimented with between sessions. Sometimes, it is necessary to review with the family what
the particular task and experiment is in order to check their understanding of what the health
professional is suggesting.
We offer the following examples of interventions that could change the behavioral domain of
family functioning.

Encouraging Respite
Often, it is very difficult for a caretaking family to allow themselves adequate respite. Too
frequently, family members feel guilty if they need or want to withdraw themselves from the
caregiving role. Even the ill member must disengage himself from time to time from the usual
caregiving and accept another person's assistance. Each family's need for respite varies. The
issues affecting respite requirements include the severity of the chronic illness, availability of
family members to care for the ill person, and financial resources (Leahey & Wright, 1987). All
of these issues must be considered before a health professional recommends a respite schedule.
S. Tucker (personal communication, October, 1984) reports that she advises families to buy a
less expensive prothesis and use the extra money for a family vacation. In this way, caregiving
and coping are balanced. Such "time outs" or "time away" are essential for families facing
excessive caretaking demands. Another example is to recommend to a mother and father with a
leukemic child to have grandparents babysit for a day while the couple have time together.

Devising Rituals
Families engage in many daily (e.g., bedtime reading), yearly (e.g., Thanksgiving dinner at
Grandma's), and cultural (e.g., ethnic parades) rituals. Health professionals can suggest
therapeutic rituals that are not or have not been observed by the family. Roberts (1988) defines
rituals as:

Coevolved symbolic acts that include not only the ceremonial aspects of the actual presentation
of the ritual, but the process of preparing for it as well. It may or may not include words, but
does have both open and closed parts which are "held" together by a guiding metaphor.
Repetition can be a part of rituals through either the content, the form, or the occasion. There
should be enough space in therapeutic rituals for the incorporation of multiple meanings by
various family members and clinicians, as well as a variety of levels of participation. (p. 8)

In our clinical practice, we have observed that chronic illness and/or psychosocial problems
frequently interrupt usual rituals. Rituals are best introduced when there is an excessive level of
confusion caused by the simultaneous presentation of incompatible injunctions. Rituals serve to
provide clarity in a family system (Imber-Black, Roberts, & Whiting, 1988). For example,
parents who cannot agree on child-rearing practices often end up giving conflicting messages.
This can result in chaos and confusion for their children. The introduction of an odd-day even-
day ritual (Selvini-Palazzoli, Boscolo, Cecchin, & Prata, 1978) can often assist the family. The
mother could be invited to experiment with being responsible for the children on Mondays,
Wednesdays, and Fridays, and the father on Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Saturdays. On Sundays,
they could behave spontaneously. On their "days off," parents could be asked to observe, without
comment, their partner's parenting. This intervention isolates contradictory behaviors by
prescribing sequence (Tomm, 1984).

CONCLUSIONS
We have found the practice of teaching the CFIM very useful for both beginning and advanced
family clinicians. Beginning clinicians are often overwhelmed by the complexity of family
dynamics and frequently lose sight of their role in helping families effect change. Advanced
clinicians, on the other hand, are often mesmerized by the interventions they have skillfully
crafted to enhance family functioning. When these interventions do not seem to work, the
interviewers often either repeat the same intervention or target the same area of family
functioning. With both beginners and advanced practitioners, CFIM is a useful tool to gain a
metaperspective on the fit or usefulness of the intervention offered by the interviewer and the
family's domain of functioning.

Interventions can be straightforward and simple or as innovative and dramatic as the health
professional deems necessary for the health problem(s) presented. Ell and Northen (1990)
convincingly support this statement with abundant research documentation that "interventions
intended to promote health and prevent illness should be based on the assumption that individual
health behaviors are strongly influenced by those around us, and that family general well-being
can promote the physical health of its members" (p. 79). Any interventions should be directed
toward the goals of treatment collaboratively generated by the health professional and the family.
As health professionals learn to engage actively, assess thoroughly, identify problems clearly,
and set treatment goals, the conceptualizing, choosing, and implementing of specific
interventions with each family becomes more rewarding and more effective. The ultimate goal,
of course, is to assist family members to change through discovering new solutions to their
health problems through the interventions that are offered. CFIM is one way we have found
useful to conceptualize about effecting change.

REFERENCES

Wright, Lorraine M "Calgary Family Intervention Model: One way to think about change".
Journal of Marital and Family Therapy. FindArticles.com. 14 Feb,
2010. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3658/is_199410/ai_n8725421/

* Bateson, G. (1972). Steps to an ecology of mind. New York: Ballantine Books.

* de Shazer, S. (1988). Clues: Investigating solutions in brief therapy. New York: W. W. Norton.
* Fleuridas, C., Nelson, T., & Rosenthal, D. ( 1986). The evolution of circular questions:
Training family therapists. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 12, 113-
127.
* Keeney, B. (1982). What is an epistemology of family therapy? Family Process, 21, 153-168.
* Lipchik, E., & de Shazer, S. (1986). The purposeful interview. Journal of Strategic and
Systemic Therapies, 5, 88-89.
* Loos, F., & Bell, J. M. (1990). Circular questions: A family interviewing strategy. Dimensions
of Critical Care Nursing, 9(1), 46-53.
* Maturana, H. (1988). Reality: The search for objectivity or the quest for a compelling
argument. The Irish Journal of Psychology, 6(1), 25-83.
* Selvini-Palazzoli, M., Boscolo, L., Cecchin, G., & Prata, G. (1978). A ritualized prescription in
family therapy: Odd days and even days. Journal of Marriage and
Family Counseling, 4(3), 3-9.
* Selvini-Palazzoli, M., Boscolo, L., Cecchin, G., & Prata, G. (1980). Hypothesizing-circularity-
neutrality: Three guidelines for the conductor of the session. Family
 Process, 19, 3-12.
* Tomm, K. (1984). One perspective on the Milan systemic approach: Part II. Description of
session format, interviewing style and interventions. Journal of Marital and ] Family
Therapy, 10, 253-271.
* Tomm, K. (1985). Circular interviewing: A multifaceted clinical tool. In D. Campbell & R.
Draper (Eds.), Applications of systemic family therapy: The Milan
approach (pp. 33-45). London: Grune & Stratton.
* Tomm, K. (1987). Interventive interviewing: Part II. Reflexive questioning as a means to
enable self-healing. Family Process, 26, 167-183.
* Tomm, K. (1988). Interventive interviewing -- Part III. Intending to ask lineal, circular,
strategic, or reflexive questions? Family Process, 27, 1-15.
* Tomm, K. (1989). Externalizing the problem and internalizing personal agency. Journal of
Strategic and Systemic Therapies, 1(1), 54-59.
* White, M. (1986). Negative explanation, restraint and double description: A template for
family therapy. Family Process, 25, 160-184.
* White, M. (1988-1989). The externalizing of the problem and the re-authoring of lives and
relationships. Dulwich Centre Newsletter, 3-21.
* White, M. (1988). The process of questioning: A therapy of literary merit. Dulwich Centre
Newsletter, 8-14.
* White, M., & Epston, D. (1989). Literate means to therapeutic ends. Adelaide, South Australia:
Dulwich Centre Publications.
* Wright, L. M., & Watson, W. L. (1988). Systemic family therapy and family development. In
C. J. Falicov (Ed.), Family transitions: Continuity and change over the
life cycle (pp. 407-430). New York: Guilford.

References:

* Bateson, G. (1972). Steps to an ecology of mind. New York: Ballantine Books.

Craft, M. J., & Willadsen, J. A. (1992). Interventions related to family. Nursing Clinics of North
America, 27, 517-540.
* de Shazer, S. (1988). Clues: Investigating solutions in brief therapy. New York: W. W. Norton.
Ell, K., & Northen, H. (1990). Families and health care. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.
* Fleuridas, C., Nelson, T., & Rosenthal, D. ( 1986). The evolution of circular questions:
Training family therapists. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 12, 113-
127.
Frank, A. (1991). At the will of the body. Boston, MA: Houghton-Mifflin.
Imber-Black, E., Roberts, J., & Whiting, R. (Eds.). (1988). Rituals in families and family
therapy. New York: W. W. Norton.
* Keeney, B. (1982). What is an epistemology of family therapy? Family Process, 21, 153-168.
Leahey, M., & Wright, L. M. (1987). Families and chronic illness: Assumptions, assessment. and
intervention. In L. M. Wright & M. Leahey (Eds.), Families and
chronic illness (pp. 55-76). Springhouse, PA: Springhouse Corporation.
* Lipchik, E., & de Shazer, S. (1986). The purposeful interview. Journal of Strategic and
Systemic Therapies, 5, 88-89.
* Loos, F., & Bell, J. M. (1990). Circular questions: A family interviewing strategy. Dimensions
of Critical Care Nursing, 9(1), 46-53.
* Maturana, H. (1988). Reality: The search for objectivity or the quest for a compelling
argument. The Irish Journal of Psychology, 6(1), 25-83.
Maturana, H., & Varela, F. ( 1 992). The tree of knowledge: The biological roots of human
understanding (rev. ed.). Boston, MA: Shambhala.
McElheran, N., & Harper-Jaques, S. (1994). Commendations: A resource intervention for
clinical practice. Clinical Nurse Specialist, 8(1), 7-15.
Roberts, J. (1988). Setting the frame: Definition, functions, and typology of rituals. In
E. Imber-Black, J. Roberts, & R. Whiting (Eds.), Rituals in families and family
therapy (pp. 3-46). New York: W. W. Norton.
* Selvini-Palazzoli, M., Boscolo, L., Cecchin, G., & Prata, G. (1978). A ritualized prescription in
family therapy: Odd days and even days. Journal of Marriage and
Family Counseling, 4(3), 3-9.
* Selvini-Palazzoli, M., Boscolo, L., Cecchin, G., & Prata, G. (1980). Hypothesizing-circularity-
neutrality: Three guidelines for the conductor of the session. Family
Process, 19, 3-12.
Thorne, S., & Robinson, C. (1989). Guarded alliance: Health care relationships in chronic illness.
Image, 21(3), 153-157.
* Tomm, K. (1984). One perspective on the Milan systemic approach: Part II. Description of
session format, interviewing style and interventions. Journal of Marital and
Family Therapy, 10, 253-271.
* Tomm, K. (1985). Circular interviewing: A multifaceted clinical tool. In D. Campbell & R.
Draper (Eds.), Applications of systemic family therapy: The Milan
approach (pp. 33-45). London: Grune & Stratton.
* Tomm, K. (1987). Interventive interviewing: Part II. Reflexive questioning as a means to
enable self-healing. Family Process, 26, 167-183.
* Tomm, K. (1988). Interventive interviewing -- Part III. Intending to ask lineal, circular,
strategic, or reflexive questions? Family Process, 27, 1-15.
* Tomm, K. (1989). Externalizing the problem and internalizing personal agency. Journal of
Strategic and Systemic Therapies, 1(1), 54-59.
Watson, W. L. (Producer). (1988a.) A family with chronic illness: A "tough" family copes well
[Videotape]. Calgary, Alberta, Canada: The University of Calgary.
Watson, W. L. (Producer). (1988b). Aging families and Alzheimer's disease [Videotape].
Calgary, Alberta, Canada: The University of Calgary.
Watson, W. L. (Producer). (1988c). Fundamentals of family systems nursing [Videotape].
Calgary, Alberta, Canada: The University of Calgary.
Watson, W. L. (Producer). (1989a). Families and psychosocial problems [Videotape]. Calgary,
Alberta, Canada: The University of Calgary.
Watson, W. L. (Producer). (1989b). Family systems interventions [Videotape]. Calgary, Alberta,
Canada: The University of Calgary.
Watson, W. L. (1992). Family therapy. In G. M. Bulechek & J. C. McCloskey (Eds.), Nursing
interventions: Essential nursing treatments (2nd ed., pp. 379-391).
Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders.
Watson, W. L., Bell, J. M., & Wright, L. M. (1992). Osteophytes and marital fights: A single
case clinical research report of chronic pain. Family Systems Medicine,
10, 423-435.
Watson, W. L., & Nanchoff-Glatt, M. (1990). A family systems nursing approach to
premenstrual syndrome. Clinical Nurse Specialist, 4(1), 3-9.
White, M. (1984). Pseuodo-encopresis: From avalanche to victory, from vicious to virtuous
circles. Family Systems Medicine, 2, 150-160.
* White, M. (1986). Negative explanation, restraint and double description: A template for
family therapy. Family Process, 25, 160-184.
* White, M. (1988-1989). The externalizing of the problem and the re-authoring of lives and
relationships. Dulwich Centre Newsletter, 3-21.
* White, M. (1988). The process of questioning: A therapy of literary merit. Dulwich Centre
Newsletter, 8-14.
* White, M., & Epston, D. (1989). Literate means to therapeutic ends. Adelaide, South Australia:
Dulwich Centre Publications.
Wright, L. M., Bell, J. M., & Rock, B. L. (1989). Smoking behavior and spouses: A case report.
Family Systems Medicine, 7, 158-171.
Wright, L. M., & Leahey, M. (1984). Nurses and families. A guide to family assessment and
intervention. Philadelphia: F. A. Davis.
Wright, L. M., & Leahey, M. (in press). Nurses and families. A guide to family assessment and
intervention (2nd ed.). Philadelphia: F. A. Davis.
Wright, L. M., & Levac, A. M. (1992). The non-existence of non-compliant families: The
influence of Humberto Maturana. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 17, 913-
917.
Wright, L. M., & Nagy, J. ( 1993). Death: The most troublesome family secret of all. In E.
Imber-Black (Ed.), Secrets in families and family therapy (pp. 121-137).
New York: W. W. Norton.
Wright, L. M., & Park Dorsay, J. ( 1989). A case of Marilynitis or a Marilyn Monroe infection.
Dulwich Centre Newsletter, 7-9.
Wright, L. M., & Simpson, P. ( 1991). A systemic belief approach to epileptic seizures: A case of
being spellbound. Contemporary Family Therapy: An International
Journal, 13, 165-180.
* Wright, L. M., & Watson, W. L. (1988). Systemic family therapy and family development. In
C. J. Falicov (Ed.), Family transitions: Continuity and change over the
life cycle (pp. 407-430). New York: Guilford.

Lorraine M. Wright, RN, PhD, is Director, Family Nursing Unit and Professor, Faculty of
Nursing, University of Calgary, 2500 University Drive NW, Calgary, Alberta, Canada, T2N
1N4.
Maureen Leahey, RN, PhD, is Director, Outpatient Mental Health Program and Director, Family
Therapy Training Program, Calgary District Hospital Group, 1035 7 Ave. SW, Calgary, Alberta,
Canada, T2P 3E9.

Reprint requests and/or correspondence about this article should be sent to Lorraine M. Wright at
the above address.
Copyright American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy Oct 1994
Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights Reserved
Articles and reference for Assignment-u05a1-COUN5220-Interview Project-Feb.14th, 2010-
https://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dqkfptf_486gvph32gw&btr=EmailImport

Here is a link that discusses the difference between systemic and linear therapies...
http://www.psych.ku.edu/dennisk/FamilyRx/N_S_1_8.html

Interesting paper that deals with interviewing children, but it has some insight into framing
questions to get a particular response.
(good one!)
http://jpa.sagepub.com.library.capella.edu/cgi/reprint/26/1/54

Integrating Cognitive and Systemic Perspectives: An Interview with Frank M.

(good one!)
http://tfj.sagepub.com.library.capella.edu/cgi/reprint/9/4/472

(article about interpruting communication during an interview)

Communicating about Communication in a Therapeutic Interview
http://jls.sagepub.com.library.capella.edu/cgi/reprint/15/2/101

References:

Textbook of Family and Couples Therapy: http://www.scribd.com/full/16541828?

access_key=key-2br1wu8oceow1w5876oy

EMBEDDED CODE: (SCROLL): Textbook of Family and Couples

Therapy: http://www.scribd.com/full/16541828?access_key=key-2br1wu8oceow1w5876oy
<a title="View Textbook of Family and Couples Therapy on Scribd"
href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/16541828/Textbook-of-Family-and-Couples-Therapy"
style="margin: 12px auto 6px auto; font-family: Helvetica,Arial,Sans-serif; font-style: normal;
font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 14px; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust:
none; font-stretch: normal; -x-system-font: none; display: block; text-decoration:
underline;">Textbook of Family and Couples Therapy</a> <object id="doc_243799959880483"
name="doc_243799959880483" height="600" width="100%" type="application/x-shockwave-
flash" data="http://d1.scribdassets.com/ScribdViewer.swf" style="outline:none;" > <param
name="movie" value="http://d1.scribdassets.com/ScribdViewer.swf"> <param name="wmode"
value="opaque"> <param name="bgcolor" value="#ffffff"> <param name="allowFullScreen"
value="true"> <param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"> <param name="FlashVars"
value="document_id=16541828&access_key=key-
2br1wu8oceow1w5876oy&page=1&viewMode=list"> <embed id="doc_243799959880483"
name="doc_243799959880483" src="http://d1.scribdassets.com/ScribdViewer.swf?
document_id=16541828&access_key=key-2br1wu8oceow1w5876oy&page=1&viewMode=list"
type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"
height="600" width="100%" wmode="opaque" bgcolor="#ffffff"></embed> </object>

Textbook of Family and Couples Therapy: http://www.scribd.com/full/16541828?

access_key=key-2br1wu8oceow1w5876oy

Textbook of Family and Couples Therapy: http://www.scribd.com/doc/16541828/Textbook-of-

Family-and-Couples-Therapy

http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Wikibooks

COUN5220-ASSIGNMENT-u05a1-Google Doc-http://docs.google.com/Doc?
docid=0AWK4511jK8f5ZHFrZnB0Zl80ODJmand2dmh0OA&hl=en

Interview Responses from Lashon Jenkins: assignment unit 5.doc-

https://mail.google.com/mail/?
ui=2&ik=807e355980&view=att&th=126c94b7b9acc849&attid=0.1&disp=vah&zw

Assignment unit u05a1.doc-https://mail.google.com/mail/?

ui=2&ik=807e355980&view=att&th=126c94b7b9acc849&attid=0.1&disp=vah&zw

Webpage Preview via Gmail Message: (https://mail.google.com/mail/?

ui=2&ik=807e355980&view=att&th=126c94b7b9acc849&attid=0.1&disp=vah&zw)

Capella University Online Writing Center-

http://www.capella.edu/interactivemedia/onlineWritingCenter/index.aspx?
linkID=24125&Refr=WRITING CENTER: http://www.capellawritingcenter.com/#

DIRECTIONS TO RETRIEVE ANDERSON ARTICLE FOR COURSEPACK IN COUN5220:

(under the "ask your instructor thread for coun5220)

Okay, here's how I found it. It was missing from my coursepack as well:

Try this link first, and then follow step 3:

http://proquest.umi.com.library.capella.edu/login?
COPT=REJTPTFjNWUmSU5UPTAmVkVSPTI=&clientId=62763

If that doesn’t work, follow all the steps below:

1) Go to the Capella library, and look it up under psychINFO. I put "Anderson" and selected the
field "author", and on the second line "Rethinking family therapy" and selected the field "title." It
should come up in the results list.

2) Click on the link for the article, and scroll to the bottom when the next page loads. At the
bottom of this page, click on the link for "Check Article Linker."
3) When the next page loads, choose "ProQuest Education Journals." This will bring you to a
new search engine page. Type in the same info as in step 1, hit "search" and from there the link
to the full-text html article will come up.

RSS FEED: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/tn_ref/?pi=rss

Reference Publications

Topic: RSS Feed

Bibliography for: "Calgary Family Intervention Model: One way to think about change"

Wright, Lorraine M "Calgary Family Intervention Model: One way to think about change".
Journal of Marital and Family Therapy. FindArticles.com. 14 Feb,
2010. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3658/is_199410/ai_n8725421/

Copyright American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy Oct 1994
Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights Reserved

• Previous
• 1
• …
• 5
• 6
• 7
• 8
• 9
• 10
• 11
• 12
• 13
• 14

Journal of Marital and Family Therapy

View more issues:

Articles in Oct 1994 issue of Journal of Marital and Family Therapy

• Self-help books -- It runs in my family: Overcoming the legacy of family illness by J.
Barth
by Prest, Layne A
• Professional books -- Family health psychology edited by T. J. Akamatsu, M. A. P.
Stephens, S. E. Hobfoll and J. H. Crowther
by Rolland, John S
• Professional books -- Conversations on therapy: Popular problems and uncommon
solutions by D. R. Grove and J. Haley
by Lappin, Jay
• Professional books -- Mutual causality in Buddhism and general systems theory by J.
Macy
by Murphy, Michael J
• Self-help books -- Last touch: Preparing for a parent's death by M. R. Becker
by Dwyer, Timothy F
• Professional books -- Therapy as a social construction edited by S. McNamee and K. J.
Gergen
by Thomas, Frank N
• In sickness and in health: The impact of illness on couples' relationships
by Rolland, John S
• Videotapes -- Conversation with a Blended Family: A Burning Question; An Interview
with Harry Goolishian
by Joanning, Harvey
• Self-help books -- Things just haven't been the same: Making the transition from
marriage to parenthood by B. E. Sachs
by Limansubroto, Catherine D M
• Videotapes -- Learning Disabilities: A Parent's Guide
by Romig, Chuck
• Working with men in family therapy: An exploratory study
by Dienhart, Anna; Avis, Judith Myers
• Family therapists' response to AIDS: An examination of attitudes, knowledge, and
contact
by Green, Shelley K; Bobele, Monte
• Essential elements of a family psychoeducation program in the aftercare of
schizophrenia
by Keefler, Joan; Koritar, Endre
• Calgary Family Intervention Model: One way to think about change
by Wright, Lorraine M; Leahey, Maureen
• Videotapes -- Sex, Love, and Babies
by Pike-Urlacher, Connee L; Pike-Urlacher, Robert A