Hello Jonathan!!
You are decades ahead of us!
I work with FAP mostly in my clinical office and I use it also on the
clinical supervision at the universtity.
But its just clinical training, no research is done there.

But I have great interest in those issues that you've wrote.
I've searched google and found references and articles about the FAPRS,
but I did not even tried to search for FIAT (because only car results
would come)
Is there a way to get those instruments?

My research area is psychology and informatics, my master degree was
about Internet therapy and working alliance (see an article here:
http://www.psico.net/arquivos/)

Now I'm focused on the development of a management system for clinical
psychology.
Hopefully when I get the financial support for it, there will be place
for lots of coding systems there.

Also, my master advisor (and many others brazilian researchers) are
working on coding systems based on behavior analysis, but I did not
heard of any one that is FAP related until now.

Regards!

Oliver



Jonathan Kanter wrote:

>Welcome Oliver to the list. The FAP listserve is just starting up, and
>none of us have really started using it consistently yet, so apologies
>about no one replying to you. Hopefully we will get more active and this
>listserve will become useful.
>
>My students and I have been having lots of discussions about how to
>conduct FAP research lately, and they encouraged me to post some of
>these thoughts on this list. Hopefully this will generate discussion. If
>no one responds Im quitting this listserve. (just kidding)
>
>I am becoming more and more strident about the necessity of remaining
>behavior analytic in this research. To me, the key is idiographic
>assessment, conceptualization, and measurement of CRBs and how they
>change over the course of therapy. I am slowly seeing a model for what
>this research should involve. This of course is what Glenn has been
>working on for several years now, so what I write below will be quite
>redundant with Glenns work. Im summarizing it here because Im really
>interested in a program of research that systematically addresses the
>various themes important to FAP, and Im just now starting to see how
>all the pieces that Glenn has been working on fit together.
>
>1. Case conceptualization and FAP assessment to determine CRBs. There
>are several research questions here.
>
>a. First, are there classes of CRBs? Glenn has made an attempt to come
>up with these with the FIAT interview. The FIAT ended up classifying
>CRBs into five potential categories (assertiveness, bi-directional
>communication, conflict, disclosure, and emotional expression). More
>loosely, I know in some FAP writings by Bobs lab CRBs have been
>classified into three categories (intimacy, avoidance, and cognitive).
>
>b. Second, can some sort of interview be developed to reliably identify
>such classes? Again, Glenn has already worked on this, but unfortunately
>my labs brief, initial attempts to use his system in a reliable way
>failed rather badly, so work has to be done in this area. But it seems
>doable. For example, once an interview is created, two people could
>independently interview the same person to see if the same CRBs result,
>or two people could watch the same interview and we would see if these
>two raters would come up with the same CRBs.
>
>2. Once CRBs can be reliably identified, can they be operationalized in
>a way that allows for weekly measurement? Measurement would have to be
>of both in-session CRBs and corresponding outside problems.
>
>a. Glenns FAPRS system is meant to measure the occurrence of the CRBs
>in session. Unlike the FIAT, where I see room for some improvement, I
>think the FAPRS is pretty close to perfect, as long as it can be
>established that raters can use it reliably. I know Glenn has already
>studied this and right now we are trying to learn the system and test
>out reliability between us and Glenn.
>
>b. The FIAT is designed to measure corresponding out of session
>problems. In our lab, weve been trying to use a form of the FIAT to
>track problems that we identified idiographically with two current
>clients, and it has been very difficult. Weve been hoping to establish
>a stable baseline in these problems over several weeks before
>implementing the interventions, in classic A-B design fashion, but it
>has been extremely frustrating because the clients arent reporting the
>problems reliably, so the baselines are unstable.
>
>3. Once CRBs can be reliably identified, and both in session CRBs and
>corresponding out of session problems can be reliably measured, we can
>put the whole thing together, and try to show a relationship between the
>occurrences of in session CRBs (identified with a reliable interview and
>measured with a reliable observer-based system), contingent therapist
>responding to CRBs (measured with reliable observer-based system) and
>corresponding out of session problems (reported reliably by the clients
>using the FIAT or a similar diary card system). Glenn has already worked
>on half of this equation  using lag analysis to show a relationship
>between in session CRBs and in session therapist responding, but I dont
>know if he has also added in the statistical relation to changes in out
>of session problems.
>
>Thats the program. Any comments or thoughts are welcome.
>
>
>