Here goes one more vote in favor of a CRB3 and CRB4 distinction. My
students easily take up talking about "CRB3problems"
and "CRB3improvements", which makes it felt that infact we are
dealing with two different things, which might need different names.

I also vote in favor of maintaining the distinction with CRB2,
because the CRB4 is only valuable as a possible step toward a CRB2.
It will not help the client much if he or she keeps making good
functionl analyses of his or her own behavior. On the other hand, a
CRB2 is the real improvement happening in-session.

It is nice to be able to distinguish between (on the one hand) a CRB2
like improved approach behavior that will really help solve the
problems the client seeks help for, and (on the other hand) a CRB4
like improved causal talk and great client insight, which may be
quite helpful as a step forwards for therapy, but will not by itself
solve the problems the client seeks help for.

Luc
--- In functionalanalyticpsychotherapy@yahoogroups.com, Claudia
Oshiro <claudiaoshiro77@...> wrote:
>
> Dear Jonathan and Bob,
>
> First of all, I would like to thank the e-mails you two wrote to
me, giving me some answers.
>
> I´m writing the method of my dissertation and, as I´m reading
in the papers that you all are publishing, we can find a lack of
research directly examining FAP and its mechanism of change. And I
could notice that the answers Kanter´s students are looking for
(and some others research groups) are the same we are having here
when we discuss my dissertation. Like I read in Fap´s new book,
chapter 2, "it remains to be demonstrated, however, that FAP
can outperform existing treatments in standard randomized clinical
trials" (p.32). That´s exactly what I want to do: I got inspired
to conduct such trials!
> On the other hand, I´m having all these questions and I know
that probably I will have to make some important methodological
decisions.
>
> I liked the idea of having a separate code for the CRB3 that are
about CRB1 and 2 and a separate code for CRB3 that are
about outside issues. Probably, it just came to mind - thinking
about the purpose of my dissertation, I will code only the first kind
of CRB3 ("CRB3s are especially important to FAP when they related to
CRB1s and CRB2s, because CRB3s should help with the generalization of
CRB2s form therapy to outside life" p.14, chapter 1, Fap´s new
book).
>
> And Jonathan, I would like to have the latest FAPRS manual. I´m
going to use the manual to code my sessions, during the phase
that I´m gonna add Fap to the tradicional behavior-analytic
psychotherapy.
>
> And Bob, I have the same questions Jonathan asked you.....and I
will think about CRB1, 2, 3 and 4....
>
> Well, thanks a lot! I would like to keep talking to you
guys and share some data.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Claudia Oshiro
> Terapeuta analítico-comportamental
> Av. Rouxinol, 1041 - Conj. 1701
> Moema - São Paulo/SP
> (11) 9631-9500
> (19) 3434-9597 (Piracicaba/SP)
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> De: Jonathan W Kanter <jkanter@...>
> Para: functionalanalyticpsychotherapy@yahoogroups.com
> Enviadas: Quinta-feira, 29 de Janeiro de 2009 21:29:18
> Assunto: Re: [functionalanalyticpsychotherapy] Re: Doubts CRB3
>
>
> Bob this is interesting. Can you clarify your cognitive therapy
example just so I understand?
>
> Here it is: "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."
>
> If I understand your example, I am saying that in your example, a
client's improved, more accurate statement, if it is in the context
of the therapy relationship (e.g, "I do believe that taking risks
with you is worth it because it will not lead to rejection and will
make us closer") would be coded as CRB2 (if you are allowing for such
cognitive variables to be seen as CRB, which is another issue), not
CRB3, which handles your question - how do we know if a CRB3 is in
need of improvement? But I do not think that is what you are saying
here. If the improved statement is not a CRB2 in this example, what
would be a CRB2 and how would this CRB3 be functionally defined with
respect to its effect on the CRB2? And if you are saying it is
functionally related to the CRB2, wouldn't it just be another CRB2?
>
> Jonathan
>
> 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: "Bob Kohlenberg" <fap@... edu>
> To: "FAP" <functionalanalyticp sychotherapy@ yahoogroups. com>
> Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2009 4:53:14 PM GMT -06:00 US/Canada
Central
> Subject: [functionalanalytic psychotherapy] Re: Doubts CRB3
>
> 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?
>
>  
>
>   Bob
>
>  
> 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
>  
> 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
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: functionalanalyticp sychotherapy@ yahoogroups. com
> To: functionalanalyticp sychotherapy@ yahoogroups. com
> Sent: Saturday, January 24, 2009 5:26 AM
> Subject: [functionalanalytic psychotherapy] Digest Number 297
>
> Functional Analytic Psychotherapy
> Messages In This Digest (1 Message)
>
> 1a. Re: Doubts CRB3 From: Jonathan W Kanter
> View All Topics | Create New Topic Message
>
> 1a. Re: Doubts CRB3
> Posted by: "Jonathan W Kanter" jkanter@uwm. edu   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: functionalanalyticp sychotherapy@ 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: [functionalanalytic psychotherapy] 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 Analítico-Aomportame ntal
> Av. Rouxinol, 1041 - Conj. 1701
> Moema - São Paulo/SP
>    (11) 9631-9500  
>    (19) 3434-9597   (Piracicaba/ SP)
>
>  
>
> Claudia Oshiro
>
> Terapeuta analítico-comportame ntal
>
> Av. Rouxinol, 1041 - Conj. 1701
>
> Moema - São Paulo/SP
>
> (11) 9631-9500
>
>
>
>
> Veja quais são os assuntos do momento no Yahoo! +Buscados
> http://br.maisbuscados.yahoo.com
>