Thinking about your comments regarding reliable assessment. I think
that is a good goal and it occurred to me that therapists/assessors
would present different stimulus functions and would, due to their
unique histories, elicit/evoke and be sensitive to different stimulus
functions of the client. That is, the differing stimulus properties
and sensitivities would itself confound reliability. I know, thanks
for simplifying things, right?

On the one hand, I like the idea of reliability of rating/assessment
(although I have traumatic flashbacks of actually establishing and
measuring it). On the other hand, I think I was starting to see Bill
Follette's point about determining variables (CRB 1s & 2s) that we
can demonstrable push around (show contingent responding). That is,
the reliability given validity argument. Did that make any sense?

Also, you mentioned that clients are not consistently reporting
problems (I think you mean that one session they have one complaint,
next week something else is their problem). I wonder if that is is a
functional class in itself and do these problems differ mainly in
topography?

enough, I think shorter messages are more digestable than lengthy.
>

> 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 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.
>
> --
> Jonathan W. Kanter, Ph.D.
> Assistant Professor and Clinic Coordinator
> Department of Psychology
> University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
> P.O. Box 413
> Milwaukee, WI 53201
> Office: Garland Hall 238C
> (414) 229-3834