This is an open call for papers for the International Journal of Behavioral
Consulation and Therapy. IJBCT is a peer reviewed open access journal that
publishes four times/year. For viewing go to www.behavior-analyst-online.org 
The mission of IJBCT:

"The behavioral psychologies are major forces which influence many areas of
human interest. These psychologies draw on various learning theories to produce
change in clients and consultees performance and combine in an area known as
Behavior Therapy. Behavior therapy is a broad area that often lacks integration
and understanding between the theoretical and technological aspects of the
field.
The International Journal of Behavioral Consultation and Therapy is committed to
increasing the communication between various areas of behavioral consultation
and therapy. As the massive body of behavioral research in psychology and
education has been produced, the BAO group deemed that a new journal was needed
to handle the ever-increasing interest and ever fractionating field."

The International Journal of Behavioral Consultation and Therapy strives to be a
high quality journal, that also brings up to the minute information on current
developments within the field to those who can benefit from those developments.
Thus, the International Journal of Behavior Consultation and Therapy will
continue to publish original research, reviews of the discipline, theoretical
and conceptual work, applied research, program descriptions, research in
organizations and the community, clinical work, and curriculum developments. Our
vision is to become the voice of clinical behavior analysis and behavior therapy
practices

Thus, we are looking for authors who are conducting behavioral work in the areas
stated by our mission from around the world. We want to hear from you the
readers. If you have a study that you think is appropriate for the journal, send
it to:

Joseph Cautilli, Ph.D.
Co-Lead Editor
International Journal of
Behavioral Consultation
and Therapy
jcautilli2003@...

----- Original Message -----

From: Bob Kohlenberg

To: Bob Kohlenberg ; FAP

Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2009 3:13 PM

Subject: Website URL

Oh yes-

the website URL is functionalanalyticpsychotherapy.com or faptherapy.com

 

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: Bob Kohlenberg

To: FAP

Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2009 3:08 PM

Subject: Website

Dear Colleagues

We have a new webmaster and are going to be using this resource more fully.  If you are offering a FAP related training that you would like to list- please send a proposal to me at fap@....  If you have a paper published that you want listed (that is not currently listed or is listed but does not have an attached pdf)  send me the reference and pdf if available.  The website has recently been updated.

Best

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

Website looks really great!

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@...>
To: "Bob Kohlenberg" <fap@...>, "FAP"
<functionalanalyticpsychotherapy@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2009 5:13:00 PM GMT -06:00 US/Canada Central
Subject: [functionalanalyticpsychotherapy] Website URL


Oh yes-
the website URL is functionalanalyticpsychotherapy.com or faptherapy.com
 
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: Bob Kohlenberg
To: FAP
Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2009 3:08 PM
Subject: Website


Dear Colleagues
We have a new webmaster and are going to be using this resource more fully. 
If you are offering a FAP related training that you would like to list- please
send a proposal to me at fap@... .  If you have a paper published
that you want listed (that is not currently listed or is listed but does not
have an attached pdf)  send me the reference and pdf if available.  The
website has recently been updated.
Best
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: Bob Kohlenberg

To: FAP

Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2009 3:08 PM

Subject: Website

Dear Colleagues

We have a new webmaster and are going to be using this resource more fully.  If you are offering a FAP related training that you would like to list- please send a proposal to me at fap@....  If you have a paper published that you want listed (that is not currently listed or is listed but does not have an attached pdf)  send me the reference and pdf if available.  The website has recently been updated.

Best

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

Hi all,

This paper on FAPRS coding is now in press. It was a true labor of love in every
sense of the phrase for Drew and several other members of the lab, and
represents a beautiful (in my opinion) extension of Glenn and Bill's earlier
work.

It is a tough article to get through, very dense, but if you're interested in
FAPRS it is our best work yet.  Personally, and I am clearly biased, I think the
whole thing is brilliant and it should set the standard for a new paradigm of
process research.  I have a hunch the field will not see it that way :)

Nonetheless, congratulations Drew.

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

The latest issue of the open access, eer reviewed journal- the
International Journal of Behavioral Consultation and Therapy is now
available online at www.behavior-analyst-online.org  issue 4.4 - so
stop by and take a look.



Joe

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
>

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@...>
To: "FAP" <functionalanalyticpsychotherapy@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2009 4:53:14 PM GMT -06:00 US/Canada Central
Subject: [functionalanalyticpsychotherapy] 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: functionalanalyticpsychotherapy@yahoogroups.com
To: functionalanalyticpsychotherapy@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, January 24, 2009 5:26 AM
Subject: [functionalanalyticpsychotherapy] 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@...   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@... >
To: functionalanalyticpsychotherapy@yahoogroups.com
Cc: "Sonia Beatriz" < sbmeyer@... >, "Rodrigo Nunes Xavier" <
rodrigonunesxavier@... >, "Giovana Del Prette" < gdprette@... >
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 Analítico-Aomportamental
Av. Rouxinol, 1041 - Conj. 1701
Moema - São Paulo/SP
   (11) 9631-9500  
   (19) 3434-9597   (Piracicaba/SP)

 

Claudia Oshiro

Terapeuta analítico-comportamental

Av. Rouxinol, 1041 - Conj. 1701

Moema - São Paulo/SP

(11) 9631-9500

----- Original Message -----

From: functionalanalyticpsychotherapy@yahoogroups.com

To: functionalanalyticpsychotherapy@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Saturday, January 24, 2009 5:26 AM

Subject: [functionalanalyticpsychotherapy] 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@...   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 Analítico-Aomportamental
Av. Rouxinol, 1041 - Conj. 1701
Moema - São Paulo/SP
   (11) 9631-9500  
   (19) 3434-9597   (Piracicaba/SP)

 

Claudia Oshiro

Terapeuta analítico-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 - Esportes

Back to top

Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (2)

Recent Activity

Visit Your Group

Sitebuilder

Build a web site

quickly & easily

with Sitebuilder.

Y! Groups blog

The place to go

to stay informed

on Groups news!

Yahoo! Groups

Special K Challenge

Join others who

are losing pounds.

Need to Reply?

Click one of the "Reply" links to respond to a specific message in the Daily Digest.

Create New Topic | Visit Your Group on the Web

Messages | Files | Photos | Links | Members | Calendar

MARKETPLACE

---

From kitchen basics to easy recipes - join the Group from Kraft Foods

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

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@...>
To: functionalanalyticpsychotherapy@yahoogroups.com
Cc: "Sonia Beatriz" <sbmeyer@...>, "Rodrigo Nunes Xavier"
<rodrigonunesxavier@...>, "Giovana Del Prette" <gdprette@...>
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 Analítico-Aomportamental
Av. Rouxinol, 1041 - Conj. 1701
Moema - São Paulo/SP
   (11) 9631-9500  
   (19) 3434-9597   (Piracicaba/SP)

 

Claudia Oshiro

Terapeuta analítico-comportamental

Av. Rouxinol, 1041 - Conj. 1701

Moema - São Paulo/SP

(11) 9631-9500

(19) 3434-9597 (Piracicaba/SP)





De: luc.vandenberghe <luc.vandenberghe@...>
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 - Esportes

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 functionalanalyticpsychotherapy@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.
> >
> >
>

Hi Renee,

I don't know of any other FAP websites other than the faptherapy.com website you
mention in your email. What type of websites are you thinking about?

Congratulations on getting your FAP workshop accepted! That's fantastic news!

-Christeine

On Thu, 8 Jan 2009, Renee Hoekstra 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.
>

Privileged, confidential or patient identifiable information may be contained
in this message.  This information is meant only for the use of the intended
recipients.  If you are not the intended recipient, or if the message has been
addressed to you in error, do not read, disclose, reproduce,distribute,
disseminate, or otherwise use this transmission. Instead, please notify the
sender by reply e-mail and then destroy all copies of the message and any
attachments.  Thank you.

Christeine M. Terry
Functional Analytic Psychotherapy Research Group
University of Washington
Department of Psychology
Guthrie Annex 1 Room 134
Box 351525
Seattle, WA. 98195
206-685-7462

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.

The peer reviewed open access journal- Journal of Early and Intensive
Behavior Intervention is now available at www.behavior-analyst-
online.org  In addition, please note the below announcement from the
editor:





Announcement:

With the publication of our next issue, both the Name and Mission of
the  Journal of Early and Intensive Behavioral Intervention (JEIBI)
will change. From this point froward, JEIBI will be known as The
Journal of Behavior Assessment and Intervention for Children (JBAIC).
This name change reflects the concurrent change in Mission to serve
as an Open Submission Journal  with a broader target population,
including children of all ages diagnosed with developmental
disabilities, medical issues, and mental health diagnoses, as well as
those who are considered neuro-typically developing. The journal's
philosophical orientation remains grounded in the science of human
behavior, specifically promoting empirically supported research
focused on functional behavior assessment and treatment
interventions, as well as innovative teaching methodologies which
meet the standards of Evidence Based Practices. Additionally, JBAIC
seeks to provide a forum for the discussion of critical contemporary
issues within the public domain that serve to affect the provision of
such services. As such, we welcome and encourage not only the
submission of research on successful interventions, but also the
submission of literature reviews, legislative/legal briefs, and
position papers focused on the ethical issues affecting the delivery
of such services. In addition, articles and research conducted on
organizational behavior management related to the improvement of
program design and development will also be accepted.  Interested
authours should submit their manuscripts to:  Michael F. Dorsey,
Ph.D, Editor JBAIC, at: mfdorsey@....

Hi Everyone,

Happy New Year!!

I'm writing to let you know that the latest issue of the Journal of
Speech-Language Pathology and Applied Behavior Analysis has just been
published at http://www.slp-aba.net/. JSLP-ABA is an open-access on-
line journal published by Behavior Analysis Online.  Enjoy!

Joe

Hello All,

The peer reviewed open access journal- International Journal of
Behavioral Consultation and Therapy Volume 4 issue 3 is now online.
This issue is a special issue on Behavior Analysis in Developmental
Disabilities. If interested, stop by to download your copy at
http://www.behavior-analyst-online.org/

Joe

see below:


Joe

The newest issue of Journal of Behavior Analysis of Offender and
Victim
Treatment and Prevention is available for free online at

http://www.joba- ovtp.net/

Current Issue
Volume 1, Issue 3

Table of Contents

Halina Dziewolska and Donald Hantula, Brief Report: Theoretical
Interpretation of Deception: Application to malingering,
............ ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... .......
.. ......... .
............ .......237

Laurie Goldfarb, Richard O'Brien, and Elisa Krackow, Can Preschoolers
Resist
the Lures of Known and Unknown Perpetrators? : A Preliminary
Examination of
the Efficacy of a Behavioral Abduction Prevention
Program..... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... .......
.. ......... .
............ ......... ......... ........240

R. Anthony Doggett, J. Dale Bailey, Kristin N. Johnson-Gros, Beyond
Crime
and Punishment: Reconceptualizing the school disciplinary ladder
through a
PBS model....... ......... ......... ..247

Terrance M. Scott, Joseph Calvin Gagnon, and C. Michael Nelson,
School-Wide
Systems of Positive Behavior Support: A Framework for Reducing School
Crime
and Violence.... ......... ......... ..259

Katreena L. Scott and Valerie E. Copping, Promising Directions for the
Treatment of Complex Childhood Trauma: The Intergenerational Trauma
Treatment Model....... ......... ......... ......273

James Vess, Tony Ward, and Rachael Collie, Case Formulation with Sex
Offenders: An Illustration of Individualized Risk
Assessment.. ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... .......
.. ......... .
............ ......... ....284

Arlene Wallace and Joseph Cautilli, Behavior Analysis and Childhood
Conduct
Problems Back to the Future: A Review of Dermot O'Reilly's Conduct
Disorders
and Behavioral Parent Training..294

Regards,

Craig
C. A. Thomas, Ph.D., BCBA
Behavior Analyst

Thanks Gareth! The message contained an old website address. I can tell I'm
super-busy when I start making silly mistakes like this! :)

I've sent out a correction to the listserv.

Hope you are well (how is the grant going?),
-Christeine

On Tue, 4 Nov 2008, Gareth Holman wrote:

> Hi Christeine-
> When I click on the link in the email below, I get a 'file not found message.'
> The link from your previous email works fine, however.  Just thought you
should
> know
> G
> ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^
>
> Gareth Holman
> Graduate Student
> Clinical Psychology
> University of Washington
>
> Privileged, confidential or patient identifiable information may be contained
> in this message. This information is meant only for the use of the intended
> recipients. If you are not the intended recipient, or if the message has been
> addressed to you in error, do not read, disclose, reproduce, distribute,
> disseminate or otherwise use this transmission. Instead, please notify the
> sender by reply e-mail, and then destroy all copies of the message and any
> attachments. Correspondence via e-mail is not guaranteed to be confidential.
>
>
>
>
>
> On Nov 3, 2008, at 6:10 PM, Christeine M. Terry wrote:
>
>> Dear FAP researcher, therapist, or student,
>>
>> This is to remind you that you recently received an invitation to
>> participate in an online survey on attitudes towards mental illness and
>> in-vivo processes.  The survey can be accessed at https://
>> staff.washington.edu/cmt3/grad.htm. Once you are on the site, please click
>> on the "FAP researcher, therapist, student" link to be taken directly to the
>> study.
>>
>> Your participation in this survey is completely voluntary.  If you plan to
>> participate in the survey, please complete the survey by 11/5/08.
>>
>> If you have any questions please email or phone.  Please note that for all
>> web-based email, complete confidentiality cannot be assured.
>>
>> Thank you for your time,
>> Christeine Terry, Ph.C., cmt3@...  (206-685-7462)
>> Robert Kohlenberg, Ph.D., fap@... (206-543-9898)
>>
>>
>> Privileged, confidential or patient identifiable information may be
>> contained
>> in this message.  This information is meant only for the use of the intended
>> recipients.  If you are not the intended recipient, or if the message has
>> been
>> addressed to you in error, do not read, disclose, reproduce,distribute,
>> disseminate, or otherwise use this transmission. Instead, please notify the
>> sender by reply e-mail and then destroy all copies of the message and any
>> attachments.  Thank you.
>>
>> Christeine M. Terry
>> Functional Analytic Psychotherapy Research Group
>> University of Washington
>> Department of Psychology
>> Guthrie Annex 1 Room 134
>> Box 351525
>> Seattle, WA. 98195
>> 206-685-7462
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------
>>
>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>
>>
>> fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com
>>
>
>

Privileged, confidential or patient identifiable information may be contained
in this message.  This information is meant only for the use of the intended
recipients.  If you are not the intended recipient, or if the message has been
addressed to you in error, do not read, disclose, reproduce,distribute,
disseminate, or otherwise use this transmission. Instead, please notify the
sender by reply e-mail and then destroy all copies of the message and any
attachments.  Thank you.

Christeine M. Terry
Functional Analytic Psychotherapy Research Group
University of Washington
Department of Psychology
Guthrie Annex 1 Room 134
Box 351525
Seattle, WA. 98195
206-685-7462

Hello,

My apologies for sending this announcement again, but the original message
contained an old website address. The correct website is:
http://students.washington.edu/cmt3/study_home_page.html

I've included the reminder email with the correct website below.

Thank you again for your participation,

-Christeine

Dear FAP researcher, therapist, or student,

This is to remind you that you recently received an invitation to
participate in an online survey on attitudes towards mental illness and
in-vivo processes. The survey can be accessed at
Dear FAP researcher, therapist, or student,

This is to remind you that you recently received an invitation to
participate in an online survey on attitudes towards mental illness and
in-vivo processes. The survey can be accessed at
http://students.washington.edu/cmt3/study_home_page.html
Once you are on the site, please click on the "FAP researcher, therapist,
student" link to be taken directly to the study.

Your participation in this survey is completely voluntary. If you plan to
participate in the survey, please complete the survey by 11/5/08.

If you have any questions please email or phone. Please note that for all
web-based email, complete confidentiality cannot be assured.

Thank you for your time,
Christeine Terry, Ph.C., cmt3@... (206-685-7462)
Robert Kohlenberg, Ph.D., fap@... (206-543-9898)
. Once you are on the site,
please click on the "FAP researcher, therapist, student" link to be taken
directly to the study.

Your participation in this survey is completely voluntary. If you plan to
participate in the survey, please complete the survey by 11/5/08.

If you have any questions please email or phone. Please note that for all
web-based email, complete confidentiality cannot be assured.

Thank you for your time,
Christeine Terry, Ph.C., cmt3@... (206-685-7462)
Robert Kohlenberg, Ph.D., fap@... (206-543-9898)


Privileged, confidential or patient identifiable information may be contained
in this message.  This information is meant only for the use of the intended
recipients.  If you are not the intended recipient, or if the message has been
addressed to you in error, do not read, disclose, reproduce,distribute,
disseminate, or otherwise use this transmission. Instead, please notify the
sender by reply e-mail and then destroy all copies of the message and any
attachments.  Thank you.

Christeine M. Terry
Functional Analytic Psychotherapy Research Group
University of Washington
Department of Psychology
Guthrie Annex 1 Room 134
Box 351525
Seattle, WA. 98195
206-685-7462