Having problems with message search?

Dear Jonathan and Claudia
Definitely an interesting question and issue.
I can see the merit in defining causal talk as either a CRB1 or 2-- this captures the notion that it is a behavior that needs to be functionally assessed and thus shaped. Causal statements can thus be broadly defined and includes the range ABC or AC, or BC or maybe even just B (this could even be an improved CRB3 if they never mention their own behavior). The problem is it is a stretch to say the client’s daily life problem concerns the way in which they describe their behavior and its causes. To be sure their descriptions may not be particularly useful in dealing with daily life problems, but the relationship is indirect and perhaps tenuous. Thus it is possible for someone to improve how close and open they are (if this is their daily life problem) as a result of shaping being open during the therapeutic interaction even-- though they may have some cockamamie psychodynamic account about why they were interpersonally avoidant. On the other hand, it seems l reasonable to say they might improve more and transfer improvements to the outside with more appropriate causal talk.
Another example comes to mind. Let’s say the cognitive therapist tells the client they have a faulty assumption about being in an intimate relationship. And, they need to test their (the client’s) hypothesis (a cognition) that taking risks in being close and open will result in rejection. The client then agrees that they apparently do have this hypothesis that accounts for their intimacy problems (CRB3) and are willing to test it. Of course they can proceed in a more FAP manner if the therapist were to then ask the client to test the hypothesis in the here and now with the therapist- a way we would prefer. Could they have an even better CRB3. . Sure, they could relate their interpersonal relating problems to their history of contingencies. How do we know if a CRB3 is in need of improvement-- this would be functionally defined as to what effect it has on CRB2’s and O2’s.
Maybe what we should have done in our writings is to have defined the CRB3 to correspond to CRB1 and to CRB4 (improved interpretation) to CRB2..
So, I’m able to take this esoteric and questionable high ground and avoid topography because I'm not dealing with coding problems. I'm saying my stand is questionable because we need to be able to code the phenomena that we say are important. Perhaps some kind of compromise?
Robert J. Kohlenberg, Ph.D., ABPP
Professor
Department of Psychology 351629
University of Washington
Seattle, WA 98195
Voice- 206-543-9898
Fax 206-685-1310
Professor
Department of Psychology 351629
University of Washington
Seattle, WA 98195
Voice- 206-543-9898
Fax 206-685-1310
The above email may contain Patient Identifiable Information.
Because email is not secure, please be aware of associated risks
of email transmission. For more information on risks, please go
to the medical center's website at www.washington.edu/medical
Because email is not secure, please be aware of associated risks
of email transmission. For more information on risks, please go
to the medical center's website at www.washington.edu/medical
----- Original Message -----Sent: Saturday, January 24, 2009 5:26 AMSubject: [functionalanalyticpsychotherapy] Digest Number 297Messages In This Digest (1 Message)
- 1a.
- Re: Doubts CRB3 From: Jonathan W Kanter
Message
- 1a.
Re: Doubts CRB3
Posted by: "Jonathan W Kanter" jkanter@... jonathankanter
Fri Jan 23, 2009 1:37 pm (PST)
Hi Claudia,
Well I think you have asked some very good and complicated questions, and I have tried to be brief in my response but largely failed at that.
When writing the book, there was some disagreement about CRB3s based exactly on the points you are raising: CRB1s and CRB2s are defined as in session behavior in the context of the therapy relationship but CRB3s can be about anything, so there is some discrepency here. Why not define CRB3s as only client talk about CRB1s or CRB2s?
The book ended up sticking with how CRB3s were described in the original 1991 text, which is a much broader definition that allows any functional talk to be defined as CRB3. If you think about it, it is in fact consistent with CRB1s and CRB2s because all CRB3 talk, regardless of its content, happens in session and thus if you are trying to shape better functional talk, what matters is that the talk happens in session and can be responded to by the therapist, and this applies to talk about anything.
The reason for defining CRB3s this way was to emphasis that WHATEVER you are talking about in FAP, it is always better to be talking about it in functional terms, and even if you are not working on CRB1s and CRB2s you can still be shaping CRB3s with respect to whatever the topic is.
So the answer to your first question (What´s the difference between the CRB3 and contingency analysis made by the client?) is: nothing.
This makes sense as a general FAP principle but it is not a good way to look at it in terms of research or FAPRS coding, as your questions 2, 3, and 4 suggest. Regarding your question 3, they way CRB3s are defined in the book, they are the same thing as other functional interpretations made by the client about his/her behavior. And yes, if you are doing FAPRS coding and coding CRB1s, 2s, and 3s, this will result in many more CRB3s than the others for most FAP sessions.
We have been doing some FAPRS coding lately and have talked about some changes to the codes to clear some of this up. Ultimately, however, for our purposes we decided that we simply too complicated and just decided not to code them at all. But, if we were to code them, here is what we came up with:
1. Have a separate code for CRB3s that are about CRB1s and CRB2s (e.g., about the therapy relationship) and a separate code for CRB3s that are about outside stuff. We were calling the therapy-focsed ones CRB3s and the outside ones 03s. Then if you want to talk about the frequency of CRB3s as traditionally defined, you can just combine these two, but you can also look at them separately if that is of interest to you.
2. If shaping improved client "causal talk" was an important part of the therapy process (your question 4), we defined that "causal talk" as CRB1 or CRB2, depending on how successful it was, and not CRB3. In other words, while in general improving the functional quality of causal talk is important to all FAP sessions (thus the CRB3 code), for some clients this will become a focus of therapy and be part of the specific case conceptualization for that client. For these clients, when it occurs, we would code it as CRB1 or CRB2.
3. By the way, the reason we decided it was too complicated to code CRB3s was this: We could not find a way to define them in such a way that they could be identified reliably. We tried to specify them in terms of the traditional 3-term operant contingency (i.e., A-B-C; antecedent-behavior-consequence) and we could not agree on how many terms needed to be specified in a specific client statement to "count" as a CRB3. In other words, if the client says, "I hit him because he hit me," this specifies an A and a B but not a C. Is this functional? Again, from a general FAP perspective you can call this a CRB3 and try to make it better, but from a coding standpoint we felt that the statement NEEDED to specify a past consequence or probable future consequence to count as a CRB3. But it turns out these are very rare, so if you require the consequence for it to be a CRB3 you almost never see them. We also discussed some subcodes to specify which terms of the contingency were specified, so then we could lump them all together if we wanted but also look at different types of CRB3. For example, you could have a CRB3(A-B) or a CRB3 (B-C) or a CRB3 (A-B-C). Then we decided that this was much too complicated for our purposes and would take much too long to be able to code reliably and dropped the whole thing. For our research, we really care about the CRB1s and CRB2s a lot more, and wanted to devote our energies to getting those right. But I think Bill Follette's lab may still be pursuing that possibility of CRB3 subcodes.
Sorry this is so long - hope it is helpful. We can share with you our latest FAPRS manual; it is a bit different than the one published and on the web. All depends on your purpose and what you hope to achieve with the coding.
Jonathan Kanter
Assistant Professor
Director, UWM Depression Treatment Specialty Clinic
Coordinator, UWM Psychology Clinic
Core Scientist, Center for Addictions and Behavioral Health Research
Department of Psychology
University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
Office: Garland Hall 238D
Phone: (414) 229-3834
----- Original Message -----
From: "Claudia Oshiro" <claudiaoshiro77@yahoo.com. >br
To: functionalanalyticpsychotherapy@ yahoogroups. com
Cc: "Sonia Beatriz" <sbmeyer@usp.br >, "Rodrigo Nunes Xavier" <rodrigonunesxavier@gmail.com >, "Giovana Del Prette" <gdprette@gmail.com >
Sent: Friday, January 23, 2009 4:15:35 AM GMT -06:00 US/Canada Central
Subject: [functionalanalyticpsychotherapy] Doubts CRB3
Hello all,
I read the FAPRS and right now I´m reading the Fap´s new book and I have some questions about the CRB3. I hope you guys can help me on this.
First, in the definition of the CRB1 and CRB2 the behavior has to happen in-session and in the context of the therapeutic relationship. However, in the definition of the CRB3, according to FAPRS, the descriptions of controlling variables are CRB3s whether the client describes in-session variables, or those contingencies outside the therapy setting. Reading the Fap´s new book, chapter 1, "when clients` talk about their own behavior and the causes of it is labeled CRB3 (...).While the best CRB3s involve the observation and description of one´s own behavior and associated reinforcing, discriminative and eliciting stimuli, any `causal` talk may be seen as CRB3 because it represents an opportunity to shape something important to FAP in the therapy session" (p. 14). I thought the behavior classified as CRB1, CRB2 or CRB3 would have to happen only in-session and in the context of the therapeutic relationship. I was wondering why the CRB3 is not included in this definition.
1) What´s the difference between the CRB3 and contingency analysis made by the client?
2) In an experimental research, when I add Fap, how can I separate the CRB3s from other functional interpretations? Are they the same thing?
3) Then, if they are the same thing, wouldn´t have I more CRB3 comparing to the others (CRB1 and 2) and could this cause a distortion of the data?
4) After a client´s "causal talk" that offers an opportunity to the therapist to shape a CRB3, wouldn´t it be just an attempt to shape a CRB3 and not the CRB3?
Thanks,
Claudia Oshiro
Terapeuta AnalÃtico-Aomportamental
Av. Rouxinol, 1041 - Conj. 1701
Moema - São Paulo/SP
(11) 9631-9500
(19) 3434-9597 (Piracicaba/SP)
Claudia Oshiro
Terapeuta analÃtico-comportamental
Av. Rouxinol, 1041 - Conj. 1701
Moema - São Paulo/SP
(11) 9631-9500
(19) 3434-9597 (Piracicaba/SP)
De: luc.vandenberghe <luc.vandenberghe@yahoo.com. >br
Para: functionalanalyticpsychotherapy@ yahoogroups. com
Enviadas: Sexta-feira, 16 de Janeiro de 2009 13:43:31
Assunto: [functionalanalyticpsychotherapy] Re: review of the new book?
Yes, Tore,
It is wildly different from the previous book. It is much better-
both in its conceptual clarity (for instance, this book is much
clearer on the role of radical behavioral philosophy in their
thinking and on how they understand radical behaviorism a bit
ideocyncratically, if I may say so - Also the syncronicities with
other third wave behavior therapies are quite explicit and so are
the points that set FAP apart). The major improvement, is that case
conceptualisation and treatment strategies as well as their
implications for supervision etc. are explained in a cristal clear
language, much better accessible for the non-initiated. If buying
the new book is too big an investment, you might sell the old one
first?
--- In functionalanalyticp sychotherapy@ yahoogroups. com , "T.
Gustafsson" <tore.gustafsson@ ...> wrote:
>
> Hi there!
>
> Have anybode read the book and can you please comment on it? Is it
wildly
> different from the previous book? I'm still a student and parted
with a lot
> of cash for the first book. :)
>
> I've read on Amazon about what Marsha, Hayes and the others have
to say but
> what about you on the list?
>
> Thanks!
>
> //Tore Gustafsson, Sweden
>
> On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 4:14 AM, Renee Hoekstra <pharlap14@. ..>
wrote:
>
> > So...our listserve has been quiet for quite some time- and a
new book
> > just came out! I am very excited. Someone bought it for me for
Christmas.
> >
> > Does anyone have websites with FAP information on it (besides the
> > faptherapy.com website)/ marketing material with FAP stuff for
clients? I
> > am slowly and gradually following steps to building and putting
together a
> > private practice and my long term plans include FAP groups. I've
got a bunch
> > of website ideas mapped out.
> >
> > I also got accepted by the Northeast Society for Goup
Psychotherapy here in
> > Boston to do a 3 hour workshop on FAP groups in June.
> >
> >
>
Veja quais são os assuntos do momento no Yahoo! + Buscados: Top 10 - Celebridades - Música - EsportesNeed to Reply?Click one of the "Reply" links to respond to a specific message in the Daily Digest.
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Individual | Switch format to Traditional
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe
Offline 
Send Email